Raw SCDL as an extension, was: Create distribution for bindings, or how to switch binding implementations

[Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>]

I didn't see what this had to do with loading so split the thread.

On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Liu, Jervis wrote:
>
> Jeremy, I also have a question for you. What do you mean by saying  
> "allow the extension directory to contain simple SCDL files (xml  
> files) that define composites and which get their code through  
> dependencies"? Do you mean adding a SCDL for extension dir to  
> describe all extensions available under the extension dir? Then we  
> take this scdl as a single composite that can be deployed into  
> runtime? But this does not seem to address the loading problem  
> (when multiple implementations available).

The case I had in mind was allowing the user to place a plain XML  
document in the extension directory that would contain a composite.  
The extender would treat such as file as a component definition and  
deploy just like it would a jar containing a default.scdl file.

However, as there is no archive then the user would need to specify a  
way in which implementation artifacts would be found. I think this  
can be handled by the <dependency> mechanism and the use of the  
applicable location attributes e.g. wsdlLocation

With this the extension directory could contain a mixture of XML  
files and archives.

--
Jeremy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org