Re: [2.x] reviewing/summarizing domain operation - was: Re: Discovery-based SCA Domain for OSGi RFC 119

[Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>]

I would prefer to avoid introducing a Tuscany-specific way considering we 
already have solutions for defining the deployable composites. But you could 
propose the idea to the spec group to see what they think.

Thanks,
Raymond

--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 5:43 AM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [2.x] reviewing/summarizing domain operation - was: Re: 
Discovery-based SCA Domain for OSGi RFC 119

> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:49 AM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> b3/ one or more composite files but which are present in
>>> META-INF/sca-deployables (is this still supported?)
>>>
>>
>> No, i think i took out support for that earlier on in 2.x when porting
>> from 1.x, there may be a ML thread. Something like that still seems
>> like a good idea to me though to make it seem easy to create a simple
>> contribution. I'd quite like the spec people to extend the application
>> composite concept in the JEE spec to the Assembly spec so you can have
>> something like application composite with a standard name in a regular
>> contribution like you can have a web.composite in a .war contribution.
>> I guess we could add support for that to Tuscany and see what the spec
>> people think of it?
>>
>
> Any comments on that? Would anyone mind if the standalone runtime
> supported using a single composite named "application.composite" in a
> contribution as well as the meta-inf/sca-contribution.xml approach?
>
>   ...ant 

Re: [2.x] reviewing/summarizing domain operation - was: Re: Discovery-based SCA Domain for OSGi RFC 119

[ant elder <an...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would prefer to avoid introducing a Tuscany-specific way considering we
> already have solutions for defining the deployable composites. But you could
> propose the idea to the spec group to see what they think.
>

Ok you're right it probably is worth talking to the spec folks first.

  ...ant