I'm starting a new thread for this as suggested by Sebastien.
Simon
Simon Laws wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007 6:54 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(cut)
I don't think we should put sample dependencies in the bin distro lib
folder. If we need to include them in the bin distro (and I'm not 100%
convinced about that), then I think they should go in some other
directory.
An alternative approach would be to have a samples distro that contains
the samples plus dependencies that are only used by the samples and not
by the main runtime. I think this is better as it allows us to add more
samples without pushing up the size of the main binary distro.
Personally I like to see samples with whatever I download and I'd rather
have a bigger binary distro than a separate download. If there is a real
need to reduce the distribution size can we do it in a different way, for
example, have groups of extensions (and their samples) distributed
separately?
Samples are very important for beginning users. For users who have
moved beyond that stage and are doing real development using Tuscany,
samples are not very important. If people in this category do want
samples, they are likely to just want to refer to samples source code
to cut and paste snippets as necessary. Having pre-built sample binaries
isn't important for these users, and having the main lib directory
polluted/bloated by samples dependencies is a positive nuisance because
there's no easy way for them to find and remove the redundant files.
Having these files in Tuscany's lib directory isn't just wasting a few
bits on the disk. It can be a problem if their version levels conflict
with other versions of the same code that the user has installed.
For "genuine" Tuscany dependencies, such conflicts are a real issue
that must be handled carefully in order to get Tuscany to co-exist with
their other software. For sample dependencies, there is no actual
conflict unless the user needs to run the specific sample that pulled
in the dependency, but it might take them some time to figure out why
putting the Tuscany lib directory on the classpath is causing other
code in their application to break.
I'd suggest structuring the binary distribution as follows:
1. Tuscany runtime in "modules" and its dependencies in "lib".
At the moment we have separate copies of the Tuscany runtime in
"modules" and "lib" and I'm not quite sure why.
2. Tuscany samples source, READMEs and build files in "samples".
3. Tuscany samples binaries in "modules/samples", with their
dependencies in "lib/samples".
By doing this we solve the conflict problems and it becomes a distro
size issue to decide whether 3 should be in the main binary distro
or available separately. Since 3 will be clearly separated from 1
and 2, it will be easy to see how much extra size it is contributing.
The other dimension of splitting the distro by functional contents
is orthogonal to the above and is also worth exploring. I'd suggest
the following distro packages:
1. Base runtime with functional capabilities that almost everyone
will want to use, and associated samples.
2. A number of extension bundles (either depending only on the base,
or possibly depending on other bundles), and associated samples.
If people think this approach makes sense then we could talk about
what the base distro and extension bundles should contain.
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
