On Jan 29, 2008 3:09 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry for the late response. I have been travelling and in OASIS > meetings, and I'm just catching up with the ML now. > > See comments inline. > > Simon > > Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > > > Simon Nash wrote: > > >> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > > > >>> - What distro Zips are we building and what do they contain? just the > >>> runtime? samples or not? dependencies or not? are we building > >>> specialized distros for different use cases? > > > > [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] > > > > I'd like to discuss the following: "What distro Zips are we building and > > what do they contain?" > > > > I think we could improve our distro scheme to provide: > > - smaller packages > > - easier for people to find what they need > > > +1 to both of these. It would also help modularity by eliminating > some undesired dependencies, and it would give people a better > understanding of the true size of Tuscany. > > > I was thinking about the following binary distro zips: > > > > - tuscany-core.zip - The base that everybody needs. > > core assembly model and runtime > > Java APIs, Java components > > > I think it would make sense to have binding.ws in here. If we are > including binding.sca (as auggested by Sebastien), this implies a > need for binding.ws to handle remote endpoints. >
I agree with that. Not sure i agree all the other distro's will really help the goal of making things "easier for people to find what they need" but if we do have a core distro then i think it should include WS support. ...ant
