I would like to make a start on improving the modularity of the
distro by building a distro containing only a base SCA runtime.
Sebastien's description of this was
- base SCA runtime (assembly, policy fwk, impl-java)
If others would like to propose any changes to this list and/or
suggest which maven modules should be included, that would be
helpful. Otherwise I'll go through the modules myself to make
a first cut and iterate from there.
I think this will be a useful excercise in seeing how small we
can make this basic functionality and its dependencies. It will
also allow us to explore some of the dependency issues between
modules (official SPIs or implementation code) in a smaller and
simpler world than the whole of Tuscany SCA Java.
For now I'd like to consider this a personal experiment that may
or may not ever get released. For this reason, I'd like to do this
work in my sandbox. I haven't yet figured out how to do a sandbox
build that pulls in code from the trunk, without copying it. Does
anyone else have an example of this that I could look at?
Expect a number of these "how to" questions as I get further into
this :-)
Simon
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
Simon,
I did take a look at splitting the Tuscany distribution into bundles with
the hope of defining something which makes sense for OSGi as well as
non-OSGi. I dont really think that makes much sense anymore. Grouping
modules into OSGi bundles using existing maven plugins was far too time
consuming (in terms of the amount of time it took to do a build), and quite
messy.
So I would like to go for a simpler option for OSGi where the the zip/jar
files generated for the Tuscany distribution have a manifest file containing
OSGi bundle manifest entries, so that they can be directly installed into
OSGi (with an easy repackaging option to get rid of samples from the bundle
if the bundle size was too big). I would also like to add OSGi manifest
entries into all jars distributed by Tuscany including 3rd party jars, so
that we can use the OSGi bundle repository API to install Tuscany into an
OSGi runtime, instead of relying on Tuscany distribution structure.
I have an Eclipse plugin which shows the dependency graphs based on the
import/export statements generated by the maven-bundle-plugin. I could
compare these with the dependencies you generated (it might help to add
appropriate scopes to the dependencies).
Thank you...
Regards,
Rajini
On 11/23/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 22, 2007 2:51 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 22, 2007 1:57 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
[snip]
Simon Nash wrote:
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.
I didn't think we were polluting the lib directory with sample
dependencies, do you have a concrete example?
I thought this thread was discussing the case of a sample having a
dependency that the runtime does not have. If there are no such cases
at present, then the issue doesn't arise. However, there could be
such cases in the future as we add more "application-style" samples,
and it would be good to have an idea about how such dependencies would
be handled.
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,
Like I said earlier in the initial thread about sample dependencies,
I
don't think that samples should bring dependencies that are not
genuine
Tuscany dependencies.
OK, we are agreed about this. But what if an application-style sample
does have a non-Tuscany dependency? This is certainly
possible. Would
the Tuscany distro include the dependency, or leave it up to the user
to download it as a prereq to running the sample?
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".
+1
At the moment we have separate copies of the Tuscany runtime in
"modules" and "lib" and I'm not quite sure why.
Which JARs are you talking about?
I'm talking about the tuscany-sca-all.jar in the lib directory, which
is a combination of the contents of the jars in the modules directory.
The tuscany-sca-manifest.jar refers to the the tuscany-sca-all.jar
as well as referring to all the jars in the modules directory, which
seems somewhat redundant.
2. Tuscany samples source, READMEs and build files in "samples".
+1
3. Tuscany samples binaries in "modules/samples",
I prefer to have the binaries under samples as well, with their
source.
Having them there is more convenient but makes it harder to see how
much space they are consuming. I did some investigation, and it
turns out that these binaries are causing a huge expansion in the
size of the "samples" directory.
In the 1.0.1 binary distro, the source under the "samples" directory
occupies around 2.3 MB. The total size of source plus binaries under
this directory is 49.5 MB. This extra 47 MB for samples binaries is
almost half the total size of the Tuscany binary distro. I think we
need to either remove these binaries or separate them out into a
samples download so that we can get the Tuscany binary distro down
to a reasonable size.
with their
dependencies in "lib/samples".
Again samples should not bring additional dependencies in the first
place.
I hope this is true. I don't know how to check that nothing in
this category has been included in lib.
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.
IMO the samples should be small and not cause a size problem, and
therefore should stay in the distro.
+1 that this is how it should be, but it is definitely not the case
today. The samples make up around 50MB of the 100MB total size of
the binary distro. This needs to be fixed.
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.
Makes sense to me, I'd suggest the following packages:
- base SCA runtime (assembly, policy fwk, impl-java)
- web services package (ws binding + related databindings)
- web 2.0 package (json, dwr, widget, atom, scripting)
- data integration (impl-data, openjpa)
- business process integration (bpel, xquery)
- jee integration (ejb, jms, rmi)
- spring + osgi integration (spring, osgi)
- all-in-one, for people who don't have time to solve puzzles.
This looks pretty good as a starting point. If we find that
people are normally downloading the same combinations, we could
look at merging these combinations.
Perhaps group web services and web 2.0 together, I'm not sure.
I think these shouldn't be combined. Web 2.0 applications don't
always use Web services.
Also I'm not sure about where to put policies like security,
reliability, transactions.
Wouldn't these normally be applied to a binding? If so, they should
go with that binding IMO.
Right now the distribution is nice and simple which makes it easy for
users
to figure out what they want and it makes the download page very clear.
Having multiple downloads reduces the download size but i think it needs
to
be weighed against the extra complexity doing that might bring, so I'd
like
to see more detail about how things would look before this happens.
The main reason the binary distribution is large is because the webapp
samples are each including copies of the the Tuscany runtime
dependencies.
We've talked several times about this and i thought there was (at least
some) agreement that the webapp samples shouldn't be like this but
instead
all the samples should be simple sca contribution jars. If we fix that
then
the size problem goes away (and it simplifies the sample build scripts).
I was under the impression that there is already work ongoing to try this
out.
So an alternative to splitting up the binary distribution could be:
- keep the current standalone runtime using all the jars in the
distribution
lib directory
- make all samples simple sca contribution jars
- have a separate Tuscany WAR that you can use to run any/all the
samples
in
a webapp
I'm with you up to this point. What Tomcat deep integration work is going
on
(I do know about the Geronimo stuff).
- fix Tomcat deep integration and document how to do it (by copying the
binary lib directory jars to Tomcat lib etc)
(and slightly related - finish the Geronimo integration and get that
released somewhere and document how to use the sample contribution jars
with
it)
All those would by default include all the Tuscany extensions and
dependencies, we document which jars are for what so advanced users can
remove what they don't need.
I can do some more processing on (
http://people.apache.org/~slaws/dependencies.htm<
http://people.apache.org/%7Eslaws/dependencies.htm>)
to give some help here if required.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
