Tuscany 1.6 vs. 2.0

["Millies, Sebastian" <Se...@ids-scheer.com>]

I am not sure about moving up to Tuscany 2.0. Can anyone comment on the
state of the 2.0 code to help me decide?

A few things come to mind: 
Have the specifications on which 2.0 is based even been finalized by OASIS?
How stable is the code? There are many bugs in JIRA for 2.0, but much fewer for
1.6 - is it because 2.0 is in a state of flux, or because no one bothers with
1.6 anyway? What about the sad lack of documentation for 2.0? The very fine
book "Tuscany SCA in Action" is based on 1.4 - how much of that will survive
for 2.0? How much work would it be to migrate to 2.0 later on? What constructs
should be avoided now to make such migration easier (conversational interfaces 
etc.)?

When developing a business application, with a team that does not have much
SCA experience, at the moment I'd feel slightly safer with 1.6. Do you think
I should overcome that feeling?

-- Sebastian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ant elder [mailto:ant.elder@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:56 PM
> To: user@tuscany.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Q: Adding classes to a node
> 
[snip]
> 
> In the 2.x code there is an API that allows specifying an external
> sca-contribution.xml file when installing a contribution, that enables
> installing any arbitrary jar as a contribution and having an
> sca-contribution.xml side file define which classes in that jar are
> exported and so available to other contributions in the domain. Any
> chance you can move up to the 2.x code?
> 
>    ...ant

RE: Tuscany 1.6 vs. 2.0

[Gregor Kiddie <Gr...@channeladvisor.com>]

>From a totally independent point of view.

We've just bounced from 1.6 to 2M4 and back to 1.6 in the last couple of
weeks. Frustratingly so!

Good things about 2... updated Spring support.
Bad things about 2.... Missing JMS support (only default wire format),
utter lack of documentation.

TBH, unless you really needed something that was in 2.x, go with 1.6.
You'll find it much less frustrating in the short term.

Gk.

Re: Tuscany 1.6 vs. 2.0

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

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Millies, Sebastian
> <Se...@ids-scheer.com> wrote:
>> I am not sure about moving up to Tuscany 2.0. Can anyone comment on the
>> state of the 2.0 code to help me decide?
>>
>
> You should definitely move to 2.x, and in the case that you might be
> using some extensions not yet migrated to 2.x let us know, or let us
> migrate it.
>
>> A few things come to mind:
>> Have the specifications on which 2.0 is based even been finalized by OASIS?
>> How stable is the code? There are many bugs in JIRA for 2.0, but much fewer for
>> 1.6 - is it because 2.0 is in a state of flux, or because no one bothers with
>> 1.6 anyway?
>
> 2.x has been in more active development, and we are also tracking
> compliance fixes/todos via jira, that's probably why.
>
>> What about the sad lack of documentation for 2.0?
>
> A lot of 1.x documentation still applies to 2.x. We have also started
> a wiki to migrate 2.x specific documentation at
> http://tuscany.apache.org/documentation-2x/
>
>> The very fine
>> book "Tuscany SCA in Action" is based on 1.4 - how much of that will survive
>> for 2.0? How much work would it be to migrate to 2.0 later on? What constructs
>> should be avoided now to make such migration easier (conversational interfaces
>> etc.)?
>>
>
> A lot of the concepts haven't changed, samples might change a little,
> but people have started porting the Travel Sample to 2.x as well,
> which is the sample used in the book.
>
>> When developing a business application, with a team that does not have much
>> SCA experience, at the moment I'd feel slightly safer with 1.6. Do you think
>> I should overcome that feeling?
>>
>
> Yes, and if you find issues, you will definitely get a quicker fix if
> this is in the 2.x code stream.
>
>
> Well, these are my personal view.. others feel free to jump with your thoughts.
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>

I would say that 1.6 is a more stable code base just by virtue of that
fact that we're not doing lots of development there. We are still
changing quite fundamental things in 2.x as we work toward OASIS spec
compliance (we are nearly there for the core specs Assembly, JCAA,
JCI, Policy, WS). As Luciano says there are not vast differences
between 1.x and 2.x but some of the details of SCA have change and
some features have been removed added, for example, 2.x doesn't
support conversational interface but does support JAXWS style
asynchronous interfaces. I've just added a page to the 2.x doc [1] to
capture instructions for converting from 1.x to 2.x. The website will
take a while to refresh so you may not see this straight away. It's
very much a work in progress which I hope the rest of the community
will contribute to.

My personal view is that It's difficult to advise precisely which to
choose just at the moment because 2.x isn't actually released
properly, we're at the milestone/beta stage, and it depends how much
you're willing to get involved in moving 2.x toward it's first proper
release. It is true though that there is more active development on
2.x so if you're looking to do something new/out of the ordinary you
more likely to get attention in 2.x. We are though still fixing some
bugs in 1.x if you decide to go that route.

[1] http://tuscany.apache.org/documentation-2x/converting-tuscany-1x-applications.html

Regards

Simon

-- 
Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org
Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com

Re: Tuscany 1.6 vs. 2.0

[Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Millies, Sebastian
<Se...@ids-scheer.com> wrote:
> I am not sure about moving up to Tuscany 2.0. Can anyone comment on the
> state of the 2.0 code to help me decide?
>

You should definitely move to 2.x, and in the case that you might be
using some extensions not yet migrated to 2.x let us know, or let us
migrate it.

> A few things come to mind:
> Have the specifications on which 2.0 is based even been finalized by OASIS?
> How stable is the code? There are many bugs in JIRA for 2.0, but much fewer for
> 1.6 - is it because 2.0 is in a state of flux, or because no one bothers with
> 1.6 anyway?

2.x has been in more active development, and we are also tracking
compliance fixes/todos via jira, that's probably why.

> What about the sad lack of documentation for 2.0?

A lot of 1.x documentation still applies to 2.x. We have also started
a wiki to migrate 2.x specific documentation at
http://tuscany.apache.org/documentation-2x/

> The very fine
> book "Tuscany SCA in Action" is based on 1.4 - how much of that will survive
> for 2.0? How much work would it be to migrate to 2.0 later on? What constructs
> should be avoided now to make such migration easier (conversational interfaces
> etc.)?
>

A lot of the concepts haven't changed, samples might change a little,
but people have started porting the Travel Sample to 2.x as well,
which is the sample used in the book.

> When developing a business application, with a team that does not have much
> SCA experience, at the moment I'd feel slightly safer with 1.6. Do you think
> I should overcome that feeling?
>

Yes, and if you find issues, you will definitely get a quicker fix if
this is in the 2.x code stream.


Well, these are my personal view.. others feel free to jump with your thoughts.

-- 
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/