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 2009/10/01 09:49:43 UTC
Re: [2.x] reviewing/summarizing domain operation - was: Re:
Discovery-based SCA Domain for OSGi RFC 119
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?
...ant
Re: [2.x] reviewing/summarizing domain operation - was: Re:
Discovery-based SCA Domain for OSGi RFC 119
Posted by 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
Re: [2.x] reviewing/summarizing domain operation - was: Re: Discovery-based SCA Domain for OSGi RFC 119
Posted by 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
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
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