On Jan 21, 2008 9:31 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Nash wrote: > >> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > >> - Under which circumstances does the app packager want to package the > >> Tuscany and dependency JARs with the application artifacts. > [snip] > > With a big topic like this, dividing it into separate threads makes it > > easier for people to follow and participate in the discussions. The > > split you are suggesting looks good to me. > [snip] > > Trying to address "Under which circumstances does the app packager want > to package the Tuscany and dependency JARs with the application > artifacts?" > > My (maybe simplistic) view is: > > A) We can package in a WAR: > - several SCA contributions JARs > - any SCA deployment composites > - the required API JARs > - the required Tuscany JARs and runtime dependency JARs > > This allows deployment of an SCA/Tuscany based solution to JEE Web > containers without requiring any system configuration or software > installation besides the Webapp. > > There are some basic architectural limitations to that scheme: > - no good support for other bindings than HTTP based bindings > - footprint issue with every Webapp packaging the whole runtime > > Also we're not quite there yet as I don't think we support: > - several SCA contributions in the packaged solution > - SCA deployment composites > > B) Package SCA contributions as simple JARs, containing only the > application artifacts (no API JARs, no runtime dependency JARs). > > Packaging SCA contributions as OSGi bundles is a variation of the same > scheme. > > Any thoughts? > What other packaging schemes do people want to support and when? > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > Here's all the options I can think of: A) - app dependencies and tuscany and its dependencies in web-inf/lib B) - app dependencies in web-inf/lib, tuscany and its dependencies in container shared library (geronimo/websphere/..) C) - app dependencies and tuscany bootstrap jar in web-inf/lib, tuscany and its dependencies in web-inf/tuscany (to issolate tuscany from app CL) D) - app dependencies and tuscany bootstrap jar in web-inf/lib, tuscany and its dependencies in folder outside of webapp ie c:/Tuscany/lib E) - app dependencies in web-inf/lib, tuscany using deep integration in container (tomcat/geronimo/...) F) - all tuscany and its dependencies in web-inf/lib, app (sca contributions) in web-inf/sca-contributions G) - all tuscany and its dependencies in web-inf/lib, app (sca contributions) outside of webapp ie c:/MySCAContributions H) - tuscany using deep integration in container (tomcat/geronimo/...), app's (sca contributions) in folder in container, ie c:/apache-tomcat-6.0.10 /SCAContributions Are there any other configurations anyone can think of? Most of our webapp samples today use (A) but we've code scattered about SVN and SVN history that do most of the others. (C) and (D) is what i think was being suggested by Simon Nash in [1]. The app can see the Tuscany classes and dependencies with (A) and (B) which we were trying to avoid at one point. (B) (D) (E) and (H) reduce the size of the application as Tuscany is outside of the webapp but that requires an extra install step (G) (and F) is what I think users were interested in doing in TUSCANY-1884 and [2] So its just a matter of deciding which we want to support and distribute :) As everyone seems to have different ideas about whats important I'm tempted to say lets try to support all of these for now so we play around and see which we think are really useful. How to distribute each option could be left to another thread. ...ant [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200801.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200710.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
