On Jan 24, 2008 5:58 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 24, 2008 4:20 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Updating this list with other suggestions gives (added points 6-9): > > > > 1) applications to contain only the code and other artifacts required > for > > the application itself not Tuscany internals - simple sca contribution > jars > > > > 2) some sort of runtime(s) which can run those application contribution > > jars, so that could be things like standalone (command prompt), from > > testcases, in a webapp, or some customization of something like > > Tomcat/Geronimo/WebSphere/JBoss etc > > > > 3) Those runtimes need to be distributed but the Tuscany download page > > should have a small number of downloads so its easy for users to work > out > > which to choose > > > > 4) To make it easy for newbies to run things so at least one > distribution > > should have prebuilt samples so they can be run out-of-the box without > > having to be compiled/built and for things to work without having to do > > much/any messing about with installation/configuration/customizing. > > > > 5) Ideally the easy to use distribution is not so large. > > > > 6) automatic testing of samples > > > > 7) smaller packages > > > > 8) easier for people to find what they need > > > > 9) provide people with packages that fit their scenarios, not cluttered > > with other things they don't need > > > > This list is already pretty much in the order I favour, (1) being more > important than (9). How would others arrange it? > > ...ant > Looks ok to me but what is the difference between
7) smaller packages and 5) Ideally the easy to use distribution is not so large. Are these just generally saying that we should make our distributions as small as possible? Simon
