You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by ant elder <an...@gmail.com> on 2009/01/30 18:23:47 UTC
Re: Command-line launcher, was: Re: svn commit: r737681 -
/tuscany/java/sca/samples/build-common.xml
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A few comments:
>
> 1) Our distribution already contains the manifest.jar and
> equinox-manifest.jar:
> * manifest.jar has the Main-Class set to the node launcher and
> Class-Path set to the required Tuscany modules and 3rd party jars
> * equinox-manifest.jar has the Mani-Class set to the equinox node
> launcher and Class-Path set to the dependent jars for the launcher itself
> without pulling other Tuscany modules and 3rd party jars which are bundles
> under OSGi. We also have the configuration generated to list the bundles. It
> can be pointed using -Dosgi.configuration.area (system property).
>
> I suggest that our tuscany.bat to leverage that instead of using the
> osgi.config and default.config which require manual maintenance and **
> classpath drags unnecessary jars.
>
> 2) Let's use -<option> instead of positional arguments. For example,
>
> tuscany -osgi contrib
>
> 3) We should allow the deployment composite to be used to launch the node,
> for example
>
> tuscany -composite <compositeURI> contrib1 contrib2 ... contribN
>
> The compositeURI can be a relative URI in one of the contribs or an
> absolute URI which points to an external composite file.
>
> 4) Do we prefer to have multiple commands for different purposes or one
> command with different options?
>
>
Some of those sounds really good, just to explain, there are two things that
led to it being as it is right now. Firstly lots of ML discussion about
runtimes, launching, and running samples where aspects of how this should
work came up, without giving links to all the emails an OTTOMH summary is -
to have a Tuscany persona, to remove the mystery about what happens, to
make it simple, intuitive and consistent, and to enable simple sample
builds. The second reason its like this is to get something going quickly
with minimum work as it wasn't obvious if eveyone agreed we wanted something
like this. One other thing was to make the .bat/.sh scripts as simple as
possible as they're hard to maintain.
For (1) i'm nervous it makes it complicated and makes it hard to see whats
going on. The current config file is simple and fairly intuitive so there is
no mystery compared to digging around in a bat script to point to jars
somewhere else which you then have to unzip and look in the manifest.
For (2) absolutley. Its only like it is now as that was easy to code, to use
-<option> is a little more work but much nicer. Would also be good to have
abrevations so there's minimum to type once you know what you're doing.
Same for (3), and maybe even multiple deployment composites.
For (4) i'm not sure, what do others think? I kind of like that the single
command as it gives a persona, and the help option on the one command shows
everything possible without needing to know about other commands. And its
minimum scripts which i like as they're a not much fun to write and
maintain.
...ant
Re: Command-line launcher, was: Re: svn commit: r737681 - /tuscany/java/sca/samples/build-common.xml
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
For c), you can look at the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF inside generated "features/equinox-manifest.jar". The classpath contains only the entries for the equinox launcher. To pass in the configuration (where are the bundles) to Equinox, use "-Dosgi.configuration.area=features/configuration".
From: ant elder
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:50 AM
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: Command-line launcher, was: Re: svn commit: r737681 - /tuscany/java/sca/samples/build-common.xml
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
More comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
From: ant elder
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:23 AM
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: Command-line launcher, was: Re: svn commit: r737681 - /tuscany/java/sca/samples/build-common.xml
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
A few comments:
1) Our distribution already contains the manifest.jar and equinox-manifest.jar:
* manifest.jar has the Main-Class set to the node launcher and Class-Path set to the required Tuscany modules and 3rd party jars
* equinox-manifest.jar has the Mani-Class set to the equinox node launcher and Class-Path set to the dependent jars for the launcher itself without pulling other Tuscany modules and 3rd party jars which are bundles under OSGi. We also have the configuration generated to list the bundles. It can be pointed using -Dosgi.configuration.area (system property).
I suggest that our tuscany.bat to leverage that instead of using the osgi.config and default.config which require manual maintenance and ** classpath drags unnecessary jars.
2) Let's use -<option> instead of positional arguments. For example,
tuscany -osgi contrib
3) We should allow the deployment composite to be used to launch the node, for example
tuscany -composite <compositeURI> contrib1 contrib2 ... contribN
The compositeURI can be a relative URI in one of the contribs or an absolute URI which points to an external composite file.
4) Do we prefer to have multiple commands for different purposes or one command with different options?
Some of those sounds really good, just to explain, there are two things that led to it being as it is right now. Firstly lots of ML discussion about runtimes, launching, and running samples where aspects of how this should work came up, without giving links to all the emails an OTTOMH summary is - to have a Tuscany persona, to remove the mystery about what happens, to make it simple, intuitive and consistent, and to enable simple sample builds. The second reason its like this is to get something going quickly with minimum work as it wasn't obvious if eveyone agreed we wanted something like this. One other thing was to make the .bat/.sh scripts as simple as possible as they're hard to maintain.
For (1) i'm nervous it makes it complicated and makes it hard to see whats going on. The current config file is simple and fairly intuitive so there is no mystery compared to digging around in a bat script to point to jars somewhere else which you then have to unzip and look in the manifest.
<rfeng>I have a different take here for the following reasons:
a) MANIFEST.MF is defined by the jar spec and "Main-Class" and "Class-Path" are standard headers
b) The manifest.jar and equinox-manifest.jar have the accurate set of classpath entries. And we also support the different configurations based on the distro, such as one for core, and one for web service. They are automatically generated by Tuscany and no manual steps are required.
c) The OSGi launcher should not pull in other Tuscany modules and 3rd party jars which are OSGi bundles. Having them on the launcher classpath is problematic.
d) Arguing about mystery, the launcher is already on the magical path anyway. I'm trying to avoid intuitive directory scanning in non-development mode.
Well it doesn't seem as magical or mysterious as the alternative to me, any newbie could look at the bat scripts and config files and likely understand what was going on. IMVHO we seem to over engineer and complicate so much in Tuscany, to a actual user running tuscany.bat would it really make any difference at all? What ever, how about we wait till all the distribution, feature, and sample running discussions have got a bit more finalized so we know for sure if we need something like this launcher at all and if so exactly what it needs to do?
For (c) could you give a bit more detail? We can probably fix it just by adding some more to the config file.
...ant
Re: Command-line launcher, was: Re: svn commit: r737681 -
/tuscany/java/sca/samples/build-common.xml
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> More comments inline.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> *From:* ant elder <an...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2009 9:23 AM
> *To:* dev@tuscany.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Command-line launcher, was: Re: svn commit: r737681 -
> /tuscany/java/sca/samples/build-common.xml
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A few comments:
>>
>> 1) Our distribution already contains the manifest.jar and
>> equinox-manifest.jar:
>> * manifest.jar has the Main-Class set to the node launcher and
>> Class-Path set to the required Tuscany modules and 3rd party jars
>> * equinox-manifest.jar has the Mani-Class set to the equinox node
>> launcher and Class-Path set to the dependent jars for the launcher itself
>> without pulling other Tuscany modules and 3rd party jars which are bundles
>> under OSGi. We also have the configuration generated to list the bundles. It
>> can be pointed using -Dosgi.configuration.area (system property).
>>
>> I suggest that our tuscany.bat to leverage that instead of using the
>> osgi.config and default.config which require manual maintenance and **
>> classpath drags unnecessary jars.
>>
>> 2) Let's use -<option> instead of positional arguments. For example,
>>
>> tuscany -osgi contrib
>>
>> 3) We should allow the deployment composite to be used to launch the node,
>> for example
>>
>> tuscany -composite <compositeURI> contrib1 contrib2 ... contribN
>>
>> The compositeURI can be a relative URI in one of the contribs or an
>> absolute URI which points to an external composite file.
>>
>> 4) Do we prefer to have multiple commands for different purposes or one
>> command with different options?
>>
>>
>
> Some of those sounds really good, just to explain, there are two things
> that led to it being as it is right now. Firstly lots of ML discussion about
> runtimes, launching, and running samples where aspects of how this should
> work came up, without giving links to all the emails an OTTOMH summary is -
> to have a Tuscany persona, to remove the mystery about what happens, to
> make it simple, intuitive and consistent, and to enable simple sample
> builds. The second reason its like this is to get something going quickly
> with minimum work as it wasn't obvious if eveyone agreed we wanted something
> like this. One other thing was to make the .bat/.sh scripts as simple as
> possible as they're hard to maintain.
>
> For (1) i'm nervous it makes it complicated and makes it hard to see whats
> going on. The current config file is simple and fairly intuitive so there is
> no mystery compared to digging around in a bat script to point to jars
> somewhere else which you then have to unzip and look in the manifest.
>
> <rfeng>I have a different take here for the following reasons:
>
> a) MANIFEST.MF is defined by the jar spec and "Main-Class" and "Class-Path"
> are standard headers
> b) The manifest.jar and equinox-manifest.jar have the accurate set of
> classpath entries. And we also support the different configurations based on
> the distro, such as one for core, and one for web service. They are
> automatically generated by Tuscany and no manual steps are required.
> c) The OSGi launcher should not pull in other Tuscany modules and 3rd party
> jars which are OSGi bundles. Having them on the launcher classpath is
> problematic.
> d) Arguing about mystery, the launcher is already on the magical path
> anyway. I'm trying to avoid intuitive directory scanning in non-development
> mode.
>
>
Well it doesn't seem as magical or mysterious as the alternative to me, any
newbie could look at the bat scripts and config files and likely understand
what was going on. IMVHO we seem to over engineer and complicate so much in
Tuscany, to a actual user running tuscany.bat would it really make any
difference at all? What ever, how about we wait till all the distribution,
feature, and sample running discussions have got a bit more finalized so we
know for sure if we need something like this launcher at all and if so
exactly what it needs to do?
For (c) could you give a bit more detail? We can probably fix it just by
adding some more to the config file.
...ant
Re: Command-line launcher, was: Re: svn commit: r737681 - /tuscany/java/sca/samples/build-common.xml
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
More comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
From: ant elder
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:23 AM
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: Command-line launcher, was: Re: svn commit: r737681 - /tuscany/java/sca/samples/build-common.xml
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
A few comments:
1) Our distribution already contains the manifest.jar and equinox-manifest.jar:
* manifest.jar has the Main-Class set to the node launcher and Class-Path set to the required Tuscany modules and 3rd party jars
* equinox-manifest.jar has the Mani-Class set to the equinox node launcher and Class-Path set to the dependent jars for the launcher itself without pulling other Tuscany modules and 3rd party jars which are bundles under OSGi. We also have the configuration generated to list the bundles. It can be pointed using -Dosgi.configuration.area (system property).
I suggest that our tuscany.bat to leverage that instead of using the osgi.config and default.config which require manual maintenance and ** classpath drags unnecessary jars.
2) Let's use -<option> instead of positional arguments. For example,
tuscany -osgi contrib
3) We should allow the deployment composite to be used to launch the node, for example
tuscany -composite <compositeURI> contrib1 contrib2 ... contribN
The compositeURI can be a relative URI in one of the contribs or an absolute URI which points to an external composite file.
4) Do we prefer to have multiple commands for different purposes or one command with different options?
Some of those sounds really good, just to explain, there are two things that led to it being as it is right now. Firstly lots of ML discussion about runtimes, launching, and running samples where aspects of how this should work came up, without giving links to all the emails an OTTOMH summary is - to have a Tuscany persona, to remove the mystery about what happens, to make it simple, intuitive and consistent, and to enable simple sample builds. The second reason its like this is to get something going quickly with minimum work as it wasn't obvious if eveyone agreed we wanted something like this. One other thing was to make the .bat/.sh scripts as simple as possible as they're hard to maintain.
For (1) i'm nervous it makes it complicated and makes it hard to see whats going on. The current config file is simple and fairly intuitive so there is no mystery compared to digging around in a bat script to point to jars somewhere else which you then have to unzip and look in the manifest.
<rfeng>I have a different take here for the following reasons:
a) MANIFEST.MF is defined by the jar spec and "Main-Class" and "Class-Path" are standard headers
b) The manifest.jar and equinox-manifest.jar have the accurate set of classpath entries. And we also support the different configurations based on the distro, such as one for core, and one for web service. They are automatically generated by Tuscany and no manual steps are required.
c) The OSGi launcher should not pull in other Tuscany modules and 3rd party jars which are OSGi bundles. Having them on the launcher classpath is problematic.
d) Arguing about mystery, the launcher is already on the magical path anyway. I'm trying to avoid intuitive directory scanning in non-development mode.
</rfeng>
For (2) absolutley. Its only like it is now as that was easy to code, to use -<option> is a little more work but much nicer. Would also be good to have abrevations so there's minimum to type once you know what you're doing.
Same for (3), and maybe even multiple deployment composites.
For (4) i'm not sure, what do others think? I kind of like that the single command as it gives a persona, and the help option on the one command shows everything possible without needing to know about other commands. And its minimum scripts which i like as they're a not much fun to write and maintain.
...ant