Re: writing binding extension to integrate JBI BC

[Charuka Jayarathna <ch...@gmail.com>]

Hello Jean-Sebastien,

Thank you very much for the clarification. I wasn't very much clear
about the difference. I am happy to continue with the first proposal.

Charuka

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
<js...@apache.org> wrote:
> Charuka Jayarathna wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>  The presentation + demo at JavaOne 2008, Jos and Tijs have done the
>> same scenario which Jean-Sebastien explains. presentation can be used
>> well on implementing a similar scenario and get a better feeling on
>> integration, which I am doing now.
>
> Hmmm, what they've done is different from what I was proposing, there are at
> least three main differences:
>
> - IIRC they are running Tuscany as a Service Engine inside a JBI server, I
> was proposing something different: translate SCA definitions to JBI
> configuration for a JBI server, without requiring the Tuscany runtime.
>
> - I think they use SCA wires to represent communication between Service
> Engines (as they had an instance of Tuscany and an SCA domain per Service
> Engine). They use a special JBI binding, which I'm not sure is really
> needed.
>
> - They created one SCA domain per JBI Service Engine. IMO an SCA Domain is a
> domain of administration so instead I'd imagine 1 SCA Domain -> n Multiple
> Servers -> containing m Service Engines with the SCA domain being used to
> manage a network of connected of JBI and other servers.
>
> What they've done is a good first step to explore the integration
> capabilities though, and it would be great to have them push this further.
>
> But I think, what Tuscany requires
>>
>> is an integration of the type what Jean-Sebestian suggest in (b).
>> Please advice me on that.
>>
>>>> b) implement the minimum subset of the JBI SPIs enabling ServiceMix
>>>> Binding
>>>> Components and Service Engines to be reused and plugged into Tuscany
>
> OK, I'll try to give more thoughts on that if this is what you're most
> interested in, probably later today, but note one thing though: (b) is not
> really about integrating JBI and SCA, it is just a cheap way to reuse in
> Tuscany pieces of middleware (binding code) implemented in another
> open-source project (which just happens to be a JBI project).
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Charuka
>>
>>>> but the SCA on top of JBI story I've described above is more interesting
>>>> IMO.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/display/Main/Relationship+of+SCA+and+JBI
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>>>
>
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>

Re: writing binding extension to integrate JBI BC

[ant elder <an...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Charuka Jayarathna <ch...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> just got a reply from Tijs as they are interested in working with me
> to do a full implementation of JBI and SCA integration, going forward
> from their basic implementation.
> I think this is a good news.
>
>
Yes, that is excellent news!

   ...ant

Re: writing binding extension to integrate JBI BC

[Charuka Jayarathna <ch...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

just got a reply from Tijs as they are interested in working with me
to do a full implementation of JBI and SCA integration, going forward
from their basic implementation.
I think this is a good news.


cheers!!
Charuka

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
<js...@apache.org> wrote:
> Charuka Jayarathna wrote:
>>
>> Hello Jean-Sebastien,
>>
>> Thank you very much for the clarification. I wasn't very much clear
>> about the difference. I am happy to continue with the first proposal.
>>
>> Charuka
>
> Great! It might be a good idea to engage with Jos and Tijs too, see what
> they think, get their input, or code contributions :) If I remember
> correctly one of them is an Apache committer.
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>

Re: writing binding extension to integrate JBI BC

[Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>]

Charuka Jayarathna wrote:
> Hello Jean-Sebastien,
> 
> Thank you very much for the clarification. I wasn't very much clear
> about the difference. I am happy to continue with the first proposal.
> 
> Charuka

Great! It might be a good idea to engage with Jos and Tijs too, see what 
they think, get their input, or code contributions :) If I remember 
correctly one of them is an Apache committer.
-- 
Jean-Sebastien