On 15/11/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Simon Nash wrote: [snip] > I'd like to see closer integration between the Tuscany Java and C++ > runtimes, with seamless cross-runtime wiring, deployment, and > composition. The application developer would write SCDL containing > components with different implementation types, and the application > would be deployed to a combination of both runtimes according to > the hosting needs of the components. Users would see a single > "federated" Tuscany runtime environment hosting multiple implementation > languages and component types, rather than being aware of two Tuscany > runtimes written in Java and C++ as they are at present. > > Simon > Right, I could imagine an application made of Java, C++, BPEL and PHP components, using Web and JMS services for example: - The Java components would run in a Java component runtime. - The C++ components would run in a C++ component runtime. - The BPEL components would run in a runtime equipped with a BPEL engine. - The PHP components would run in a PHP runtime environment. - The Web services and JMS services would be deployed to Web service and JMS enabled runtimes. Small specialized runtimes would host the various pieces of my application and communicate over a service network. As an application developer, I wouldn't care or want to know the particular language - Java, C++ - used to implement a particular runtime. I would be more interested in its capabilities and the component programming model it supports. I'd be willing to help anybody interested in working on any scenarios demonstrating this approach. Maybe we could use the WS-I supply chain scenario that we had started at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/cpp/sca/samples/SupplyChain/ for example, or any other scenario that people would be interested in working on... -- Jean-Sebastien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The scenario is what we want here. Also I see this more as a "Next steps for Tuscany" rather than a "Next steps for Tuscany C++"! -- Pete
