[2.x] modules/endpoint structure and naming

[Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>]

This is motivated by me wanting to run different itests with different
versions of the endpoint registry.

I want to split the endpoint registry implementation out of
modules/endpoint and call it endpoint-registry-local

Based on this I would then rename endpoint-tribes to be
endpoint-registry-tribes. We could have other implementations based on
this pattern.

That would leave endpoint with just EndpointReferenceBuilder. Which is
there currently as it's pluggable. I suggest we leave it as is until
we have the binding and policy match part done. We may then we able to
move it elsewhere.

Thoughts?

Simon

Re: [2.x] modules/endpoint structure and naming

[Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Raymond Feng<en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Comments inline.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Simon Laws" <si...@googlemail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:27 AM
> To: "tuscany-dev" <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> Subject: [2.x] modules/endpoint structure and naming
>
>> This is motivated by me wanting to run different itests with different
>> versions of the endpoint registry.
>>
>> I want to split the endpoint registry implementation out of
>> modules/endpoint and call it endpoint-registry-local
>
> Why don't we just move the local endpoint registry into core as the default
> implementation. We have quite a few cases like this: a built-in
> implementation of the "System Utility" is provided and they can be replaced
> by adding an extension module (with higher ranking).

OK, we can follow that pattern if you like.

>
>>
>> Based on this I would then rename endpoint-tribes to be
>> endpoint-registry-tribes. We could have other implementations based on
>> this pattern.
>
> Maybe we can even name it as "tuscany-distributed-tribes".

Not so keen on this as it's not clear what tuscany-distributed means precisely.

>
>>
>> That would leave endpoint with just EndpointReferenceBuilder. Which is
>> there currently as it's pluggable. I suggest we leave it as is until
>> we have the binding and policy match part done. We may then we able to
>> move it elsewhere.
>
> IMO, it should go into core too.

Yep, OK with that. If we are going for the "default implementation"
pattern for the endpoint registry then that fits here also.

Simon

Re: [2.x] modules/endpoint structure and naming

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

Comments inline.

Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Laws" <si...@googlemail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:27 AM
To: "tuscany-dev" <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: [2.x] modules/endpoint structure and naming

> This is motivated by me wanting to run different itests with different
> versions of the endpoint registry.
>
> I want to split the endpoint registry implementation out of
> modules/endpoint and call it endpoint-registry-local

Why don't we just move the local endpoint registry into core as the default 
implementation. We have quite a few cases like this: a built-in 
implementation of the "System Utility" is provided and they can be replaced 
by adding an extension module (with higher ranking).

>
> Based on this I would then rename endpoint-tribes to be
> endpoint-registry-tribes. We could have other implementations based on
> this pattern.

Maybe we can even name it as "tuscany-distributed-tribes".

>
> That would leave endpoint with just EndpointReferenceBuilder. Which is
> there currently as it's pluggable. I suggest we leave it as is until
> we have the binding and policy match part done. We may then we able to
> move it elsewhere.

IMO, it should go into core too.

>
> Thoughts?
>
> Simon