On 3/20/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > I'd like to start a discussion on how we could componentize our SCA > runtime kernel. I posted two diagrams on our Wiki at > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Componentizing+our+runtime > to help start the discussion. > > One of the ideas is to allow for different integration strategies with > app servers and other runtime environments. Some integrations may > reuse the Tuscany kernel as a whole, but others will want to reuse > only a subset or replace parts with specific implementations. > > A few examples come to mind: > - swap our POJO IOC container with another one already there in the > target app server; > - strip out the local assembly support when building a WSDL > remote-interface based (an SCA/BPEL container for example); > - strip out the federated deployment / discovery / distributed wiring > support when building a simple standalone runtime, or if your app > server already supports that and you'd like to integrate with it; > - replace the SCDL loaders if you're storing the assembly metadata in > a database instead of SCDL files; > - use a different handler/interceptor mechanism already in use in your > app server or a more dynamic invocation mechanism to support scripting > languages for example. > > Another scenario I have in mind is to reuse parts of the Tuscany > kernel in validation tasks, codegen utilities, deployment and > management tools. For example I'd like to have an Ant task that > automates the generation of SDO or JAXB objects for an entire SCA > contribution. This task will need access to the SCA assembly model, > the SCA contribution model, maybe our Interface contract model as > well, but I don't want to drag the whole kernel for that. Similar idea > for deployment and management tasks. > > A refactored/componentized kernel will also make it easier for people > to contribute to the individual pieces and exchange components between > our various initiatives. > > For example I'd like to pull pieces of the trunk in the integration > branch, and it would be much easier if the single kernel/core module > was split in smaller independent modules (assembly model, SCA > contribution model, loaders, assembly wiring logic, invocation > framework etc...) > > To help explore these ideas, I'm thinking about starting some concrete > work and try to pull some of the kernel code into individual modules, > probably start from the bottom of the stack and have the assembly > metadata and SCDL loaders in separate modules. There's a lot of code, > so I could use any help if people are interested. > > Thoughts? > I made some progress with an assembly model module, containing interfaces representing the SCA 1.0 assembly model and a default implementation of these interfaces. The module is currently there: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/branches/sca-java-integration/sca/assembly . There's additional test cases as well under http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/branches/sca-java-integration/sca/scdl , I'm planning to merge them into the assembly module soon. The interfaces in assembly are different from the o.a.t.spi.model classes in kernel/core. They are interfaces instead of classes, and I tried to be as close as possible to the latest revision of SCA 1.0 spec. I'd like your feedback and please let me know if you see any inconsistencies with the SCA 1.0 spec. Next, I'd like to see if the model loaders could be externalized as well in a separate module, but this is going to be a little more complicated as the current loaders have more dependencies, including circular dependencies with other packages in kernel/core. This work is starting to generate significant changes and new code and I don't want to risk destabilizing the integration branch with it so I'd like to continue to work on this somewhere in the trunk instead. I'm thinking of moving the assembly model module to trunk under java/sca/assembly, available for use by our various tools, plugins, as well as the kernel and services modules if they need. Thoughts?
Moving this to trunk and continuing development there seems like the best approach to me. ...ant
