Me too, read this as a very valuable.
Something else, I want to say here: Tuscany is doing things no more than Spring
infact, It's nothing but standard.
To boost Tuscany, we have a lot of works to do, one of the most is TRANSACTION
support.
Bind Tuscnay with Spring together is not something smart to me, if Tuscany has
transaction support, I think Anderson would not need Spring any more.
Nice day.
Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anderson, Jeff T (CA -
Toronto) wrote:
> Shore,
> I am currently leading a team working for a large Canadian financial services
> institution to develop what is going to be there standardized SOA platform
> going forward. Currently we are supporting a number of international banking
> initiatives, with domestic and other channels coming aboard within this in
> the next fiscal year. We plan to go in production with Tuscany within the
> next couple of months. We have done fairly rigorous performance testing
>
> When shopping around for the right technology to help support this
> initiative, we were careful to look at anything that would help us to support
> a "business centric/POJO" programming model. In other words, we didn't want
> infrastructure/plumbing code intermingled with our business logic, even on
> the inheritance level.
>
> The two technologies that seem to best serve our purposes was
> 1) Tuscany/SCA with its ability to inject services as well as various binding
> technologies,
> 2) Spring for its IOC/AOP support.
>
> We've done some fairly rigorous performance testing on the Tuscany/Spring
> mix, and are getting very good results. (Tomcat/Windows and
> websphere/Solaris)
> Once finished we would be happy to publish.
>
> One of the major things currently impacting our ability to deliver a truly
> integrated service assembly model is that we are running into limitations in
> terms of spring binding support from Tuscany. We are currently just using a
> pogo binding that calls a spring adapter, simply just a Java class that
> implements the service interface, invokes the application context and then
> delegates to the actual service implementation which is a Spring bean.
>
> Once the spring binding improves, we will probably be the first to jump on
> it, we are also considering contributing to the current spring binding
> implementation, but our development cycles are fairly packed with
> implementing service platform features which we have mostly done using Spring
> aspects. These features include service caching, service logging, service
> validation , and service error handling. We use Spring AOP to declaratively
> inject these lifecycle features, and use Spring introductions to dynamically
> introduce common interfaces to service requests and service response objects
> currently being generated by Tuscany SDO.
>
> In the coming months we will try to put a bit of a case study together, and
> submit it up to the Tuscany wiki.
> Regards
> Jeff
>
>
Hi Jeff,
Good input. Thanks! Would you mind opening JIRAs to report the technical
limitations you've run into with the current Spring implementation
extension? We are about to put the next release together and if you do
this soon we may be able to address some of them before we release.
Thanks
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
