You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@tuscany.apache.org by Altaf Muneer <mm...@gmail.com> on 2008/10/29 15:03:33 UTC
Tuscany SCA Native
Hi,
I was just checking the SCA Native strain of Tuscany and I had the following
questions..
Is there any ongoing work in Tuscany SCA Native? (I noticed that the last
release was in May 2007)
Is there any support for C in Tuscany SCA Native?
Are there any resources which will help one add new bindings for Tuscany SCA
native?
I would be grateful if anybody can answer these questions/ point me to some
resources where I can find answers to these questions.
Regards,
Altaf
Re: Tuscany SCA Native
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Balasubramanyam, Shivakumar <
sbalasub@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> Altaf,
>
> I looked at SCA three months ago and spend couple of weekends (night-outs
> actually).
>
> SCA will be great solution going forward where applications that are
> written in C++ needs to work in multiple environments (consumers could be
> C++ or Java) and act as a container of any sorts.
>
> Issue is that, the current SCA-native code does not cut it. My evaluation
> was below,
>
> Dislikes:
> 1. usage of namespaces and exceptions are not supported in all embedded
> platforms.[not a concern on server side]
> 2. I really don't like the existing approach which requires the marshalling
> of operation arguments in the Proxy/Wrapper to an intermediate
> ParamterTypes. Also, the code is duplicated in DataObject
> This can be achieved by using something like,
> map<"datatype_stringname", void* data> that can be passed to the model to be
> serialized. Even better, using boost::any will allow genericity and
> I would follow the concept of pushing the service binding information
> out of stub/wrapper just like the transport or RPC modules.
> 3. Removing dependency on any fixed parsing technology (xml in this case)
> 4. No need for dynamic type identification over the wire format [which is
> actually a great feature on the luxury platforms]
> 5. For C++ only environment, concept of domain, composite, components is an
> overload.
> 6. Also, for CPPImplementation, the wrapper code does not need to make this
> intermediate conversion of types and RPC invocations (Please let me know if
> I am wrong). Cuz, the real implementation already supports function
> descriptions. Well, I will see if I can provide samples.
>
>
> Likes:
> 1. Best comment was the layered design of core, model and extensions.
> ServiceProxy, ServiceWrappers and Operation (which is basically a generic
> way of storing RPC identifiers)
>
> I actually got the SCA tweaked to remove the SDO and DAS and the code size
> was less than 500KB. I preferred static data marshalling factory of all
> types to get rid of the SDO and DAS. The wire protocol format in the service
> binding should be sufficient to make it interoperable.
>
> Please note that, I have disliked some very nice features of SCA mainly to
> make it practical in embedded world.These points may make no sense on the
> server side with greater availability of memory, cpu and storage.
>
> My conclusion was to base the framework on WSDL + OSGi + SCA (conversations
> feature is really nice and lacks in WSDL).
>
> I will revisit SCA after some time to see if SDO can be developed with
> lower footprint (i don't need all the features of SDO like change summary).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Shiva
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Altaf Muneer [mailto:mmaltaf@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:19 PM
> *To:* user@tuscany.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Tuscany SCA Native
>
> Hi Haleh, Simon,
>
> Thanks for the responses and comments..
>
> > Do you have a pure C/C++ environment or is this an environment where Java
> and C++ components will be used in the same composite?
> We have a pure C/C++ environment..
> We are planning to use Tuscany SCA native (a stripped down version if that
> is possible) in an embedded environment
>
> > At the moment I think it's a matter of looking at how the existing
> bindings work an doing similar.
> Yeah, i think thats what we will try to do..
>
> Thank you for your time and suggestions
>
> Regards,
> Altaf
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:24 PM, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Atlaf,
>>
>> Do you have a pure C/C++ environment or is this an environment where Java
>> and C++ components will be used in the same composite?
>>
>> Haleh
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Altaf
>>>
>>> Some comments in line...
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Altaf Muneer <mm...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was just checking the SCA Native strain of Tuscany and I had the
>>>> following questions..
>>>>
>>>> Is there any ongoing work in Tuscany SCA Native? (I noticed that the
>>>> last release was in May 2007)
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a lot. I did just check in a patch that one of the community
>>> contributed but other than that there hasn't been recent discussion about
>>> how to move it forward. Good opportunity if you want to get involved;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is there any support for C in Tuscany SCA Native?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not yet FAIK. There is a spec for C component types (
>>> http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_ClientAndImplementationModelforC_V100.pdf?version=1)
>>> but no implementation of it yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are there any resources which will help one add new bindings for Tuscany
>>>> SCA native?
>>>
>>>
>>> It looks a bit thin at the moment. At the moment I think it's a matter
>>> of looking at how the existing bindings work an doing similar.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would be grateful if anybody can answer these questions/ point me to
>>>> some resources where I can find answers to these questions.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Altaf
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Hi Shiva
That's a good list. Thanks for taking the time to put it together. Are there
any of the changes that you made that can be included in the Tuscany code
base?
One of the points that features in your list (items 2,3,4 & 6) and which has
come up before is the lack of databinding framework in the Native SCA
support. We have one in Java SCA which allows a great deal of flexibility
regarding how data is represented at the service interface and how it is
moved across the wire, for example, you are not forced to use SDO. However
it's not made it's way into the native runtime. Is this what you were
starting to build?
Regards
Simon
Re: Tuscany SCA Native
Posted by Altaf Muneer <mm...@gmail.com>.
Hi Shiva,
Thanks a lot for the comments..The points you made are of great help.
Regards,
Altaf
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Balasubramanyam, Shivakumar <
sbalasub@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> Altaf,
>
> I looked at SCA three months ago and spend couple of weekends (night-outs
> actually).
>
> SCA will be great solution going forward where applications that are
> written in C++ needs to work in multiple environments (consumers could be
> C++ or Java) and act as a container of any sorts.
>
> Issue is that, the current SCA-native code does not cut it. My evaluation
> was below,
>
> Dislikes:
> 1. usage of namespaces and exceptions are not supported in all embedded
> platforms.[not a concern on server side]
> 2. I really don't like the existing approach which requires the marshalling
> of operation arguments in the Proxy/Wrapper to an intermediate
> ParamterTypes. Also, the code is duplicated in DataObject
> This can be achieved by using something like,
> map<"datatype_stringname", void* data> that can be passed to the model to be
> serialized. Even better, using boost::any will allow genericity and
> I would follow the concept of pushing the service binding information
> out of stub/wrapper just like the transport or RPC modules.
> 3. Removing dependency on any fixed parsing technology (xml in this case)
> 4. No need for dynamic type identification over the wire format [which is
> actually a great feature on the luxury platforms]
> 5. For C++ only environment, concept of domain, composite, components is an
> overload.
> 6. Also, for CPPImplementation, the wrapper code does not need to make this
> intermediate conversion of types and RPC invocations (Please let me know if
> I am wrong). Cuz, the real implementation already supports function
> descriptions. Well, I will see if I can provide samples.
>
>
> Likes:
> 1. Best comment was the layered design of core, model and extensions.
> ServiceProxy, ServiceWrappers and Operation (which is basically a generic
> way of storing RPC identifiers)
>
> I actually got the SCA tweaked to remove the SDO and DAS and the code size
> was less than 500KB. I preferred static data marshalling factory of all
> types to get rid of the SDO and DAS. The wire protocol format in the service
> binding should be sufficient to make it interoperable.
>
> Please note that, I have disliked some very nice features of SCA mainly to
> make it practical in embedded world.These points may make no sense on the
> server side with greater availability of memory, cpu and storage.
>
> My conclusion was to base the framework on WSDL + OSGi + SCA (conversations
> feature is really nice and lacks in WSDL).
>
> I will revisit SCA after some time to see if SDO can be developed with
> lower footprint (i don't need all the features of SDO like change summary).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Shiva
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Altaf Muneer [mailto:mmaltaf@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:19 PM
> *To:* user@tuscany.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Tuscany SCA Native
>
> Hi Haleh, Simon,
>
> Thanks for the responses and comments..
>
> > Do you have a pure C/C++ environment or is this an environment where Java
> and C++ components will be used in the same composite?
> We have a pure C/C++ environment..
> We are planning to use Tuscany SCA native (a stripped down version if that
> is possible) in an embedded environment
>
> > At the moment I think it's a matter of looking at how the existing
> bindings work an doing similar.
> Yeah, i think thats what we will try to do..
>
> Thank you for your time and suggestions
>
> Regards,
> Altaf
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:24 PM, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Atlaf,
>>
>> Do you have a pure C/C++ environment or is this an environment where Java
>> and C++ components will be used in the same composite?
>>
>> Haleh
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Altaf
>>>
>>> Some comments in line...
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Altaf Muneer <mm...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was just checking the SCA Native strain of Tuscany and I had the
>>>> following questions..
>>>>
>>>> Is there any ongoing work in Tuscany SCA Native? (I noticed that the
>>>> last release was in May 2007)
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a lot. I did just check in a patch that one of the community
>>> contributed but other than that there hasn't been recent discussion about
>>> how to move it forward. Good opportunity if you want to get involved;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is there any support for C in Tuscany SCA Native?
>>>
>>>
>>> Not yet FAIK. There is a spec for C component types (
>>> http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_ClientAndImplementationModelforC_V100.pdf?version=1)
>>> but no implementation of it yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are there any resources which will help one add new bindings for Tuscany
>>>> SCA native?
>>>
>>>
>>> It looks a bit thin at the moment. At the moment I think it's a matter
>>> of looking at how the existing bindings work an doing similar.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would be grateful if anybody can answer these questions/ point me to
>>>> some resources where I can find answers to these questions.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Altaf
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
RE: Tuscany SCA Native
Posted by "Balasubramanyam, Shivakumar" <sb...@qualcomm.com>.
Altaf,
I looked at SCA three months ago and spend couple of weekends (night-outs actually).
SCA will be great solution going forward where applications that are written in C++ needs to work in multiple environments (consumers could be C++ or Java) and act as a container of any sorts.
Issue is that, the current SCA-native code does not cut it. My evaluation was below,
Dislikes:
1. usage of namespaces and exceptions are not supported in all embedded platforms.[not a concern on server side]
2. I really don't like the existing approach which requires the marshalling of operation arguments in the Proxy/Wrapper to an intermediate ParamterTypes. Also, the code is duplicated in DataObject
This can be achieved by using something like, map<"datatype_stringname", void* data> that can be passed to the model to be serialized. Even better, using boost::any will allow genericity and
I would follow the concept of pushing the service binding information out of stub/wrapper just like the transport or RPC modules.
3. Removing dependency on any fixed parsing technology (xml in this case)
4. No need for dynamic type identification over the wire format [which is actually a great feature on the luxury platforms]
5. For C++ only environment, concept of domain, composite, components is an overload.
6. Also, for CPPImplementation, the wrapper code does not need to make this intermediate conversion of types and RPC invocations (Please let me know if I am wrong). Cuz, the real implementation already supports function descriptions. Well, I will see if I can provide samples.
Likes:
1. Best comment was the layered design of core, model and extensions. ServiceProxy, ServiceWrappers and Operation (which is basically a generic way of storing RPC identifiers)
I actually got the SCA tweaked to remove the SDO and DAS and the code size was less than 500KB. I preferred static data marshalling factory of all types to get rid of the SDO and DAS. The wire protocol format in the service binding should be sufficient to make it interoperable.
Please note that, I have disliked some very nice features of SCA mainly to make it practical in embedded world.These points may make no sense on the server side with greater availability of memory, cpu and storage.
My conclusion was to base the framework on WSDL + OSGi + SCA (conversations feature is really nice and lacks in WSDL).
I will revisit SCA after some time to see if SDO can be developed with lower footprint (i don't need all the features of SDO like change summary).
Thanks,
Shiva
________________________________
From: Altaf Muneer [mailto:mmaltaf@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:19 PM
To: user@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: Tuscany SCA Native
Hi Haleh, Simon,
Thanks for the responses and comments..
> Do you have a pure C/C++ environment or is this an environment where Java and C++ components will be used in the same composite?
We have a pure C/C++ environment..
We are planning to use Tuscany SCA native (a stripped down version if that is possible) in an embedded environment
> At the moment I think it's a matter of looking at how the existing bindings work an doing similar.
Yeah, i think thats what we will try to do..
Thank you for your time and suggestions
Regards,
Altaf
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:24 PM, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Atlaf,
Do you have a pure C/C++ environment or is this an environment where Java and C++ components will be used in the same composite?
Haleh
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
Hi Altaf
Some comments in line...
Simon
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Altaf Muneer <mm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I was just checking the SCA Native strain of Tuscany and I had the following questions..
Is there any ongoing work in Tuscany SCA Native? (I noticed that the last release was in May 2007)
Not a lot. I did just check in a patch that one of the community contributed but other than that there hasn't been recent discussion about how to move it forward. Good opportunity if you want to get involved;-)
Is there any support for C in Tuscany SCA Native?
Not yet FAIK. There is a spec for C component types (http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_ClientAndImplementationModelforC_V100.pdf?version=1) but no implementation of it yet.
Are there any resources which will help one add new bindings for Tuscany SCA native?
It looks a bit thin at the moment. At the moment I think it's a matter of looking at how the existing bindings work an doing similar.
I would be grateful if anybody can answer these questions/ point me to some resources where I can find answers to these questions.
Regards,
Altaf
Re: Tuscany SCA Native
Posted by Altaf Muneer <mm...@gmail.com>.
Hi Haleh, Simon,
Thanks for the responses and comments..
> Do you have a pure C/C++ environment or is this an environment where Java
and C++ components will be used in the same composite?
We have a pure C/C++ environment..
We are planning to use Tuscany SCA native (a stripped down version if that
is possible) in an embedded environment
> At the moment I think it's a matter of looking at how the existing
bindings work an doing similar.
Yeah, i think thats what we will try to do..
Thank you for your time and suggestions
Regards,
Altaf
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:24 PM, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Atlaf,
>
> Do you have a pure C/C++ environment or is this an environment where Java
> and C++ components will be used in the same composite?
>
> Haleh
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Altaf
>>
>> Some comments in line...
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Altaf Muneer <mm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was just checking the SCA Native strain of Tuscany and I had the
>>> following questions..
>>>
>>> Is there any ongoing work in Tuscany SCA Native? (I noticed that the last
>>> release was in May 2007)
>>
>>
>> Not a lot. I did just check in a patch that one of the community
>> contributed but other than that there hasn't been recent discussion about
>> how to move it forward. Good opportunity if you want to get involved;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>> Is there any support for C in Tuscany SCA Native?
>>
>>
>> Not yet FAIK. There is a spec for C component types (
>> http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_ClientAndImplementationModelforC_V100.pdf?version=1)
>> but no implementation of it yet.
>>
>>
>>> Are there any resources which will help one add new bindings for Tuscany
>>> SCA native?
>>
>>
>> It looks a bit thin at the moment. At the moment I think it's a matter of
>> looking at how the existing bindings work an doing similar.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I would be grateful if anybody can answer these questions/ point me to
>>> some resources where I can find answers to these questions.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Altaf
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Tuscany SCA Native
Posted by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>.
Hi Atlaf,
Do you have a pure C/C++ environment or is this an environment where Java
and C++ components will be used in the same composite?
Haleh
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> Hi Altaf
>
> Some comments in line...
>
> Simon
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Altaf Muneer <mm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was just checking the SCA Native strain of Tuscany and I had the
>> following questions..
>>
>> Is there any ongoing work in Tuscany SCA Native? (I noticed that the last
>> release was in May 2007)
>
>
> Not a lot. I did just check in a patch that one of the community
> contributed but other than that there hasn't been recent discussion about
> how to move it forward. Good opportunity if you want to get involved;-)
>
>
>
>> Is there any support for C in Tuscany SCA Native?
>
>
> Not yet FAIK. There is a spec for C component types (
> http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_ClientAndImplementationModelforC_V100.pdf?version=1)
> but no implementation of it yet.
>
>
>> Are there any resources which will help one add new bindings for Tuscany
>> SCA native?
>
>
> It looks a bit thin at the moment. At the moment I think it's a matter of
> looking at how the existing bindings work an doing similar.
>
>
>>
>> I would be grateful if anybody can answer these questions/ point me to
>> some resources where I can find answers to these questions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Altaf
>>
>
>
Re: Tuscany SCA Native
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Altaf
Some comments in line...
Simon
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Altaf Muneer <mm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was just checking the SCA Native strain of Tuscany and I had the
> following questions..
>
> Is there any ongoing work in Tuscany SCA Native? (I noticed that the last
> release was in May 2007)
Not a lot. I did just check in a patch that one of the community contributed
but other than that there hasn't been recent discussion about how to move it
forward. Good opportunity if you want to get involved;-)
> Is there any support for C in Tuscany SCA Native?
Not yet FAIK. There is a spec for C component types (
http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_ClientAndImplementationModelforC_V100.pdf?version=1)
but no implementation of it yet.
> Are there any resources which will help one add new bindings for Tuscany
> SCA native?
It looks a bit thin at the moment. At the moment I think it's a matter of
looking at how the existing bindings work an doing similar.
>
> I would be grateful if anybody can answer these questions/ point me to some
> resources where I can find answers to these questions.
>
> Regards,
> Altaf
>