Would it be possible to add an OSGi manifest header into these zip files so
that the zips can be directly installed into an OSGi runtime? The entries
will not have any impact when used without OSGi. The only issue would be the
creation of these entries. We have two options - 1)generate them
automatically during the build process using the maven-bundle-plugin, or 2)
hand-code a manifest file. It would be easiest to go with option 2) to start
with to avoid any build issues. If it becomes difficult to maintain the
hand-coded manifest file, we can move to option 1).
The manifest entries will contain bundle names, versions, imported packages,
exported packages and a bundle classpath(which lists jars contained inside
the zip).

Thoughts?



Thank you...

Regards,

Rajini

On 1/23/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ant elder wrote:
> [snip]
> > Would each distro include everthing it needs or is tuscany-core.zip a
> > prereq?
>
> tuscany-core is a prereq. That's what I meant with "tuscany-core - The
> base that everybody needs."
>
> > Where do all the different data bindings go?
>
> Some in tuscany-core, some in tuscany-web, some (saxon for example) in
> tuscany-process or tuscany-all.
>
> > Doesn't one of the SCA specs say an SCA runtime MUST support binding.ws?
>
> Yes in the assembly spec. Is that an issue?
>
> > Is interface.wsdl supported in the others or only with tuscany-web?
>
> I view interface.wsdl as part of tuscany-core.
>
> > Is the core distro really so useful with nothing except
> > implementation.javaand no bindings
>
> The SCA binding should be in tuscany-core.
>
> > Do all those distro's include everything to support both tomcat and
> Jetty
> > standalone and webapps...and all the runtimes being discussed like
> Geronimo
> > and Tomcat deep integration?
>
> I'd rather stick to a small number of runtimes. I must admit I'm
> confused by the growing list of runtimes and their different capabilities.
>
> My naive view is:
> - Webapp support in tuscany-web
> - Geronimo support in tuscany-jee (as I'll want to use Geronimo to
> integrate JEE artifacts)
> - or Geronimo support in its own tuscany-geronimo package?
>
> What do others think?
>
> > Would any/all of those work with all the new domain/node stuff? And i
> think
> > right now that requires things like the WS and JSON support?
>
> IMO the new domain/node stuff drags too much of Tuscany at the moment
> and needs more work to simplify it.
>
> We could put the domain management application in a separate package, as
> people won't install it on all their nodes. Thoughts?
>
> > Where would all the demo's get included?
> >
>
> In the most relevant package, alert-aggregator in the tuscany-web
> package, xml-bigbank in tuscany-process, some in tuscany-all.
>
> > If this is mainly about reducing the size of the download
> [snip]
>
> No, I want to provide people with packages that fit their scenarios, not
> cluttered with other things they don't need.
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Reply via email to