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 2007/08/12 03:00:27 UTC
SCA distribution is really big now
Our SCA binary distribution is over 100Meg now and there's still extensions
and dependencies I've not added yet. This seems a little big considering
we're trying to sell Tuscany as all svelte and light weight.
So what to do? The reason its so big is that every webapp sample and demo we
have ends up including a copy of most of the runtime and dependencies. One
solution could be to just ship fewer prebuilt webapp samples and demos.
Another could be to change the way we do those samples so that each
sample/demo is just a simple SCA contribution jar and you have to deploy
that to some Tuscany runtime. We've already the webapp runtime that would
work for that, and the Geronimo Tuscany support, and we could create
another standalone runtime if you don't want to use Tomcat or Geronimo.
What do people think, does the size matter, are there some other things we
could do?
...ant
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On 8/22/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So not much consensus on what to do with this yet. The binary distro is
> currently coming in at 107MB. Of that the following 5 samples and demo's
> account for about 50MB:
>
> demo-allert-aggregator.war
> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
>
> Should we delete these, keep these, delete some of these, keep but don't
> distribute pre-built artifacts? The three samples are quite similar so i
> think at least one maybe two of them could be removed for this release and
> then look at just having simple SCA contribution jar's for the samples and
> demo's for 1.0. (at least one of these was contributed by a user so we
> should try to keep that one)
>
> ...ant
>
> On 8/14/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, let me try to understand this. We are going to remove the -webapp
> > samples from the release binary distribution (due to size constrains),
> > but we are still going to continue supporting the -webapp story. Users
> > can still see these samples on the source distributions, right ?
> >
> > I'm asking this because I think that our users DO use Tuscany in the
> > scenario of a -webapp, and if we are going to remove the -webapp
> > samples, users that are evaluating the new release might think we
> > removed the webapp support, so we need to be clear.
> >
> > If the webapp story is changing, then we should document (wiki) and
> > test so our users can migrate to the new story. If this requires
> > <implementation.web> I'd think we should implement these changes when
> > it's ready.
> >
> > As an alternative approach, what about creating a samples-webapp distro
> ?
> >
> > On 8/14/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ant elder wrote:
> > > > > On 8/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Anderson, Jeff T (CA - Toronto) wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I like having the samples, in the absence of extensive
> > documentation
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> these are key to understanding Tuscany...
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I like the idea of packaging the samples as simple SCA
> > contribution
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> jar's. I think keeping the footprint as little as possible is
> > > > important,
> > > > >> both in terms of optics and managing the complexity and
> > understanding.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Just my humble opinion...
> > > > >>> Jeff
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> +1 to keep the samples as simple SCA contribution JARs.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The current webapp packaging is not quite right anyway as it's
> > > > >> introducing a half baked mix of J2EE and SCA programming model
> > inside
> > > > >> the webapp.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'd suggest the following:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - Package SCA sample components as simple SCA contribution JARs,
> > stay
> > > > >> away from webapps.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - To allow JSP and servlets to invoke SCA service component,
> > support
> > > > >> <implementation.web> Web components as described in [1].
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] http://www.osoa.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3980
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (now back on the dev list)
> > > > >
> > > > > Just to make sure I understand, as an example right now we have
> > > > > sample-helloworld-ws-service and
> > sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp, do
> > > > we
> > > > > just delete the -webapp one?
> > > >
> > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > > And then you can use the jar built by the
> > > > > sample-helloworld-ws-service with either the the Geronimo/Tuscany
> > > > > integration or our webapp runtime or with the standalone runtime
> we
> > > > already
> > > > > use it with today?
> > > > >
> > > > > That sounds like the way to go to me but that seems like quite a
> big
> > > > change,
> > > > > do we want to try to get this done in time for the upcoming
> release
> > or
> > > > wait
> > > > > till after that and just make the changes for 1.0?
> > > > >
> > > > > ...ant
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I prefer to do it now. I'm not quite sure why it's a big change?
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it just about deleting Maven modules? we have equivalent
> samples
> > > > already working with the standalone runtime right?
> > > >
> > > > Is the Geronimo integration ready to be included in the the release?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Sebastien
> > >
> > >
> > > I also think sooner would be better so happy to help go for it.
> > >
> > > The list of current webapps is:
> > >
> > > demo-alert-aggregator
> > > demo-mortgage-creditcheck
> > > sample-calculator-webapp
> > > sample-chat-webapp
> > > sample-helloworld-dojo
> > > sample-helloworld-jsonrpc
> > > sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp
> > > sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp
> > >
> > > Not sure we do have equivalent non-webapp samples for all those, i'll
> > have a
> > > go at and seeing if they all those sample- ones run ok out side of a
> > > webapp.
> > >
> > > ..ant
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > Apache Tuscany Committer
> > http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
If the build scripts work I would go for leaving them in but not
distributing the war. I don't think removing one sample is going to get the
kind of saving you're looking for. I remember there were issues with the
build scripts though so I'll have to see whether the build function was
taken out.
Simon
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>.
+1 for "I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to the
Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way, assuming that
it works".
We anyways have the READMEs where we put in documentation on how to run the
samples. Adding this step for webapps seems fine to me
-Venkat
On 8/23/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> > I'll start a different thread to discuss the more long term support
> > for <implementation.web>.
> >
> > For now, comments inline to cover the immediate WAR size issue for the
> > 0.99 release.
> >
> > Simon Laws wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> 1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples - currently
> >> all of
> >> the tuscany jars required
> >>
> >>
> > [snip]
> >> Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring the
> >> current
> >> war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that it's a
> >> good
> >> idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a small
> >> number of samples
> >>
> >
> > I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to the
> > Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way, assuming
> > that it works.
> >
>
> And to be clearer, I'm with you, -1 on removing the webapp samples and
> compressing everything into a small number of samples.
>
> Additionally we should document that people can also copy all the JARs
> to their webapp if they wish.
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> I'll start a different thread to discuss the more long term support
> for <implementation.web>.
>
> For now, comments inline to cover the immediate WAR size issue for the
> 0.99 release.
>
> Simon Laws wrote:
> [snip]
>> 1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples - currently
>> all of
>> the tuscany jars required
>>
>>
> [snip]
>> Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring the
>> current
>> war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that it's a
>> good
>> idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a small
>> number of samples
>>
>
> I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to the
> Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way, assuming
> that it works.
>
And to be clearer, I'm with you, -1 on removing the webapp samples and
compressing everything into a small number of samples.
Additionally we should document that people can also copy all the JARs
to their webapp if they wish.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 8/23/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/23/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I moved all the jars from calculator-webapp to tomcat/lib.
> > > calculator-webapp
> > > runs fine. What else is there that might cause a problem?
> > >
> > > Haleh
> > >
> > > On 8/23/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 8/22/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll start a different thread to discuss the more long term
> > support
> > > for
> > > > > <implementation.web>.
> > > > >
> > > > > For now, comments inline to cover the immediate WAR size issue for
> > the
> > > > > 0.99 release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon Laws wrote:
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > 1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples -
> > currently
> > > > all
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the tuscany jars required
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring
> > the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that
> > it's a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a
> >
> > > small
> > > > > > number of samples
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to
> > the
> > > > > Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way,
> > assuming
> > > that
> > > > > it works.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The problem is likely to be the "assuming that it works" as last
> > time i
> > > > tried this it didn't - there's various classloader issues. Changing
> > to
> > > use
> > > > "deep integration" like we used to also seems like quite a big
> > change to
> > > > be
> > > > doing just moments before we cut a release so could we at least
> > postpone
> > > > looking at that till after this release? For this release I think
> > I'm in
> > > > favour of just picking a few samples and demos to not ship pre-built
> > and
> > > > documenting that in their README's as it seems like the most minimal
> > > > change.
> > > >
> > > > ...ant
> > > >
> > >
> > I've been having a bit of a play with this and it's not straighforward
> > to
> > get this to happen in a nice way at the moment. What I was trying to do
> > was
> > knock all of the tuscany jars out of the war and have the deployment of
> > the
> > tuscany jar be a manual step.
> >
> > For some (classloader) reason the it seems to be a bit of an all or
> > nothing,
> > i.e. you have to have all of jars that were orignally in WEB-INF/lib in
> > tomcat/lib or have them all in the web itself. What I wanted to do was
> > package the non tuscany dependencies in the war to reduce the amount of
> > manual picking required when applying tuscany jars to tomcat, i.e. I
> > was
> > prepared to go with "copy all of the modules knocking out jetty, tomcat
> > etc".
> >
> > Some options at the moment given where we are
> >
> > 1/ Just fix build.xml for each sample so that the wars can be built as
> > is
> > and we don;t have to ship them.
> >
> > 2/ Variation on 1 - Fix and change the build.xml to build a minimal war
> > and
> > alongside that build either a directory or a zip of all the jars that
> > need
> > to be dropped into tomcat/lib to get the sample to work.
> >
> > 2/ create the minimal war and give detailed manual instructions about
> > which
> > jars to pick out of the distro
> >
> > Anyone else have any other ideas.
>
>
> I worry we'd not get anything other than 1/ done by tomorrow and even then
> the READMEs etc would have bugs. So my preference would be for 0.99 do 1/
> for the big webapps but keep the small prebuilt ones. The big ones are:
> demo-allert-aggregator.war
> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
>
> Thats minimum changes to what we have today, just 5 readme updates, and
> gives a distro size of less the 60Meg.
>
> For 1.0 do:
> - change samples to be simple contribution jar's that can work in all of
> standalone, webapp distro, Geronimo
> - maybe keep one existing webapp sample to demonstrate that style of
> packaging
> - fix the ClassLoader issues so that Tomcat deep integration works well
> and have a sample/documentation for deep integration
>
> That should give a 1.0 distro size of less than 50Meg.
>
> Note also, i'd like to cut the 0.99 branch and create RC1 in about 9 hours
> so if anyone wants to go for something other than this for 0.99 thats fine
> by me but it needs to start getting done pretty smartly :)
>
What do we want to do for the prebuilt samples and demo's for 1.0? There was
the above proposal for 1.0 but we're running out of time if we want to do
this - do we want to try for 1.0 or are there other suggestions, or shall we
just stick with the 0.99 approach of not shipping most of the prebuilt
war's? I guess i'd be fine with the 0.99 approach for 1.0 as it seems the
least work and we're running out of time.
...ant
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Simon Nash wrote:
>I think option 1 for 0.99 is the best (and safest) that we can do in
the time available.
+1
On 8/23/07, Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> I think option 1 for 0.99 is the best (and safest) that we can do in
> the time available. So +1 for the 0.99 part. I need to give more
> thought to 1.0.
>
> Simon
>
> Simon Laws wrote:
>
> > On 8/23/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 8/23/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 8/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I moved all the jars from calculator-webapp to tomcat/lib.
> >>>>calculator-webapp
> >>>>runs fine. What else is there that might cause a problem?
> >>>>
> >>>>Haleh
> >>>>
> >>>>On 8/23/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On 8/22/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>I'll start a different thread to discuss the more long term
> >>
> >>support
> >>
> >>>>for
> >>>>
> >>>>>><implementation.web>.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>For now, comments inline to cover the immediate WAR size issue for
> >>>
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>>>>0.99 release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Simon Laws wrote:
> >>>>>>[snip]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples -
> >>>
> >>>currently
> >>>
> >>>>>all
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>the tuscany jars required
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>[snip]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring
> >>>
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>>>>current
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that
> >>
> >>it's
> >>
> >>>a
> >>>
> >>>>>>good
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a
> >>>>
> >>>>small
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>number of samples
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>>>>Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way,
> >>
> >>assuming
> >>
> >>>>that
> >>>>
> >>>>>>it works.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The problem is likely to be the "assuming that it works" as last
> >>
> >>time
> >>
> >>>i
> >>>
> >>>>>tried this it didn't - there's various classloader issues. Changing
> >>
> >>to
> >>
> >>>>use
> >>>>
> >>>>>"deep integration" like we used to also seems like quite a big
> >>
> >>change
> >>
> >>>to
> >>>
> >>>>>be
> >>>>>doing just moments before we cut a release so could we at least
> >>>
> >>>postpone
> >>>
> >>>>>looking at that till after this release? For this release I think
> >>
> >>I'm
> >>
> >>>in
> >>>
> >>>>>favour of just picking a few samples and demos to not ship pre-built
> >>>
> >>>and
> >>>
> >>>>>documenting that in their README's as it seems like the most minimal
> >>>>>change.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...ant
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>I've been having a bit of a play with this and it's not straighforward
> >>
> >>to
> >>
> >>>get this to happen in a nice way at the moment. What I was trying to do
> >>>was
> >>>knock all of the tuscany jars out of the war and have the deployment of
> >>>the
> >>>tuscany jar be a manual step.
> >>>
> >>>For some (classloader) reason the it seems to be a bit of an all or
> >>>nothing,
> >>>i.e. you have to have all of jars that were orignally in WEB-INF/lib in
> >>>tomcat/lib or have them all in the web itself. What I wanted to do was
> >>>package the non tuscany dependencies in the war to reduce the amount of
> >>>manual picking required when applying tuscany jars to tomcat, i.e. I
> >>
> >>was
> >>
> >>>prepared to go with "copy all of the modules knocking out jetty, tomcat
> >>>etc".
> >>>
> >>>Some options at the moment given where we are
> >>>
> >>>1/ Just fix build.xml for each sample so that the wars can be built as
> >>
> >>is
> >>
> >>>and we don;t have to ship them.
> >>>
> >>>2/ Variation on 1 - Fix and change the build.xml to build a minimal war
> >>>and
> >>>alongside that build either a directory or a zip of all the jars that
> >>
> >>need
> >>
> >>>to be dropped into tomcat/lib to get the sample to work.
> >>>
> >>>2/ create the minimal war and give detailed manual instructions about
> >>>which
> >>>jars to pick out of the distro
> >>>
> >>>Anyone else have any other ideas.
> >>
> >>
> >>I worry we'd not get anything other than 1/ done by tomorrow and even then
> >>the READMEs etc would have bugs. So my preference would be for 0.99 do 1/
> >>for the big webapps but keep the small prebuilt ones. The big ones are:
> >> demo-allert-aggregator.war
> >> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> >> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> >> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> >> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
> >>
> >>Thats minimum changes to what we have today, just 5 readme updates, and
> >>gives a distro size of less the 60Meg.
> >>
> >>For 1.0 do:
> >>- change samples to be simple contribution jar's that can work in all of
> >>standalone, webapp distro, Geronimo
> >>- maybe keep one existing webapp sample to demonstrate that style of
> >>packaging
> >>- fix the ClassLoader issues so that Tomcat deep integration works well
> >>and
> >>have a sample/documentation for deep integration
> >>
> >>That should give a 1.0 distro size of less than 50Meg.
> >>
> >>Note also, i'd like to cut the 0.99 branch and create RC1 in about 9 hours
> >>so if anyone wants to go for something other than this for 0.99 thats fine
> >>by me but it needs to start getting done pretty smartly :)
> >>
> >> ...ant
> >>
> >
> > Ok, +1 for 1 given the time we have. I have to go and get some sleep. But
> > can do some of this first thing.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
I think option 1 for 0.99 is the best (and safest) that we can do in
the time available. So +1 for the 0.99 part. I need to give more
thought to 1.0.
Simon
Simon Laws wrote:
> On 8/23/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 8/23/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 8/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I moved all the jars from calculator-webapp to tomcat/lib.
>>>>calculator-webapp
>>>>runs fine. What else is there that might cause a problem?
>>>>
>>>>Haleh
>>>>
>>>>On 8/23/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 8/22/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll start a different thread to discuss the more long term
>>
>>support
>>
>>>>for
>>>>
>>>>>><implementation.web>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For now, comments inline to cover the immediate WAR size issue for
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>>>0.99 release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Simon Laws wrote:
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples -
>>>
>>>currently
>>>
>>>>>all
>>>>>
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the tuscany jars required
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>>>current
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that
>>
>>it's
>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>>>good
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a
>>>>
>>>>small
>>>>
>>>>>>>number of samples
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>>Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way,
>>
>>assuming
>>
>>>>that
>>>>
>>>>>>it works.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem is likely to be the "assuming that it works" as last
>>
>>time
>>
>>>i
>>>
>>>>>tried this it didn't - there's various classloader issues. Changing
>>
>>to
>>
>>>>use
>>>>
>>>>>"deep integration" like we used to also seems like quite a big
>>
>>change
>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>>>be
>>>>>doing just moments before we cut a release so could we at least
>>>
>>>postpone
>>>
>>>>>looking at that till after this release? For this release I think
>>
>>I'm
>>
>>>in
>>>
>>>>>favour of just picking a few samples and demos to not ship pre-built
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>>>documenting that in their README's as it seems like the most minimal
>>>>>change.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ant
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>I've been having a bit of a play with this and it's not straighforward
>>
>>to
>>
>>>get this to happen in a nice way at the moment. What I was trying to do
>>>was
>>>knock all of the tuscany jars out of the war and have the deployment of
>>>the
>>>tuscany jar be a manual step.
>>>
>>>For some (classloader) reason the it seems to be a bit of an all or
>>>nothing,
>>>i.e. you have to have all of jars that were orignally in WEB-INF/lib in
>>>tomcat/lib or have them all in the web itself. What I wanted to do was
>>>package the non tuscany dependencies in the war to reduce the amount of
>>>manual picking required when applying tuscany jars to tomcat, i.e. I
>>
>>was
>>
>>>prepared to go with "copy all of the modules knocking out jetty, tomcat
>>>etc".
>>>
>>>Some options at the moment given where we are
>>>
>>>1/ Just fix build.xml for each sample so that the wars can be built as
>>
>>is
>>
>>>and we don;t have to ship them.
>>>
>>>2/ Variation on 1 - Fix and change the build.xml to build a minimal war
>>>and
>>>alongside that build either a directory or a zip of all the jars that
>>
>>need
>>
>>>to be dropped into tomcat/lib to get the sample to work.
>>>
>>>2/ create the minimal war and give detailed manual instructions about
>>>which
>>>jars to pick out of the distro
>>>
>>>Anyone else have any other ideas.
>>
>>
>>I worry we'd not get anything other than 1/ done by tomorrow and even then
>>the READMEs etc would have bugs. So my preference would be for 0.99 do 1/
>>for the big webapps but keep the small prebuilt ones. The big ones are:
>> demo-allert-aggregator.war
>> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
>> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
>> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
>> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
>>
>>Thats minimum changes to what we have today, just 5 readme updates, and
>>gives a distro size of less the 60Meg.
>>
>>For 1.0 do:
>>- change samples to be simple contribution jar's that can work in all of
>>standalone, webapp distro, Geronimo
>>- maybe keep one existing webapp sample to demonstrate that style of
>>packaging
>>- fix the ClassLoader issues so that Tomcat deep integration works well
>>and
>>have a sample/documentation for deep integration
>>
>>That should give a 1.0 distro size of less than 50Meg.
>>
>>Note also, i'd like to cut the 0.99 branch and create RC1 in about 9 hours
>>so if anyone wants to go for something other than this for 0.99 thats fine
>>by me but it needs to start getting done pretty smartly :)
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>
> Ok, +1 for 1 given the time we have. I have to go and get some sleep. But
> can do some of this first thing.
>
> Simon
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On 8/24/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/24/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > demo-bigbank was having ant issues as well.
> >
> > On 8/24/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < jsdelfino@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Simon Laws wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I worry we'd not get anything other than 1/ done by tomorrow and
> > even
> > > > then
> > > > >> the READMEs etc would have bugs. So my preference would be for
> > 0.99do
> > > > 1/
> > > > >> for the big webapps but keep the small prebuilt ones. The big
> > ones
> > > are:
> > > > >> demo-allert-aggregator.war
> > > > >> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> > > > >> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> > > > >> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> > > > >> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thats minimum changes to what we have today, just 5 readme
> > updates,
> > > and
> > > > >> gives a distro size of less the 60Meg.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For 1.0 do:
> > > > >> - change samples to be simple contribution jar's that can work in
> > all
> > > > of
> > > > >> standalone, webapp distro, Geronimo
> > > > >> - maybe keep one existing webapp sample to demonstrate that style
> > of
> > > > >> packaging
> > > > >> - fix the ClassLoader issues so that Tomcat deep integration
> > works
> > > well
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> have a sample/documentation for deep integration
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That should give a 1.0 distro size of less than 50Meg.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Note also, i'd like to cut the 0.99 branch and create RC1 in
> > about 9
> > > > hours
> > > > >> so if anyone wants to go for something other than this for 0.99thats
> > > > fine
> > > > >> by me but it needs to start getting done pretty smartly :)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ...ant
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > Ok, +1 for 1 given the time we have. I have to go and get some
> > sleep.
> > > > But
> > > > > can do some of this first thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1 to only keep the small prebuilt WARs for 0.99 , and revisit that
> > later
> > > > for 1.0
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jean-Sebastien
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > In line with option 1, i.e. fix the jars to build the wars as is, I've
> > > fixed
> > > the ant scripts for
> > >
> > > sample-calculator-webapp
> > > demo-alert-aggregator.war
> > >
> > > in the trunk and the 0.99 branch. Still left to do
> > >
> > > demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> > > sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> > > sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> > > sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
> > > sample-chat-webapp
> > >
> > > I'm going to do the demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war next but if anyone
> > wants
> > > to have a go there is a template in the demo-alter-aggregator
> > build.xml of
> > > how to run the sdo generator etc.
> > >
> > > I haven't changed the distribution to miss out the war files or fixed
> > > READMES yes.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> OK, I've fixed the ant builds for the modules on the original list (a job
> for next time is to automate this in some way!). I haven't done the missing
> readmes for
>
> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
>
> Or sorted out the mortgage demo so if anyone has any spare time they are
> some things that need doing. I'll look at the big-bank demo build files.
>
> Simon
>
Right so that is me though the demo-bigbank-* as well - I've checked into
the branch and trunk. Now just checking out, building the distro etc to see
what I have to change by way of version numbers etc.
As an aside. It has taken me all day to go through these small number of
samples. 10% of the time was constructing ant scripts (we need a more
automatic way of doing this and testing them so that is on my list before
the next release) but 90% of my time has been just working out what these
things are supposed to do and why they don't do it anymore. Hooking the
samples/demos more closely into the build will help keep them current but if
you are just knocking up a quick sample please write a README so we know
what it is supposed to do.
Simon
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On 8/24/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> demo-bigbank was having ant issues as well.
>
> On 8/24/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Simon Laws wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I worry we'd not get anything other than 1/ done by tomorrow and
> even
> > > then
> > > >> the READMEs etc would have bugs. So my preference would be for
> 0.99do
> > > 1/
> > > >> for the big webapps but keep the small prebuilt ones. The big ones
> > are:
> > > >> demo-allert-aggregator.war
> > > >> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> > > >> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> > > >> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> > > >> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
> > > >>
> > > >> Thats minimum changes to what we have today, just 5 readme updates,
> > and
> > > >> gives a distro size of less the 60Meg.
> > > >>
> > > >> For 1.0 do:
> > > >> - change samples to be simple contribution jar's that can work in
> all
> > > of
> > > >> standalone, webapp distro, Geronimo
> > > >> - maybe keep one existing webapp sample to demonstrate that style
> of
> > > >> packaging
> > > >> - fix the ClassLoader issues so that Tomcat deep integration works
> > well
> > > >> and
> > > >> have a sample/documentation for deep integration
> > > >>
> > > >> That should give a 1.0 distro size of less than 50Meg.
> > > >>
> > > >> Note also, i'd like to cut the 0.99 branch and create RC1 in about
> 9
> > > hours
> > > >> so if anyone wants to go for something other than this for 0.99thats
> > > fine
> > > >> by me but it needs to start getting done pretty smartly :)
> > > >>
> > > >> ...ant
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > Ok, +1 for 1 given the time we have. I have to go and get some
> sleep.
> > > But
> > > > can do some of this first thing.
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > +1 to only keep the small prebuilt WARs for 0.99, and revisit that
> later
> > > for 1.0
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Sebastien
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > In line with option 1, i.e. fix the jars to build the wars as is, I've
> > fixed
> > the ant scripts for
> >
> > sample-calculator-webapp
> > demo-alert-aggregator.war
> >
> > in the trunk and the 0.99 branch. Still left to do
> >
> > demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> > sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> > sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> > sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
> > sample-chat-webapp
> >
> > I'm going to do the demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war next but if anyone
> wants
> > to have a go there is a template in the demo-alter-aggregator build.xmlof
> > how to run the sdo generator etc.
> >
> > I haven't changed the distribution to miss out the war files or fixed
> > READMES yes.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
OK, I've fixed the ant builds for the modules on the original list (a job
for next time is to automate this in some way!). I haven't done the missing
readmes for
sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
Or sorted out the mortgage demo so if anyone has any spare time they are
some things that need doing. I'll look at the big-bank demo build files.
Simon
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>.
demo-bigbank was having ant issues as well.
On 8/24/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Simon Laws wrote:
> > >
> > >> I worry we'd not get anything other than 1/ done by tomorrow and even
> > then
> > >> the READMEs etc would have bugs. So my preference would be for 0.99do
> > 1/
> > >> for the big webapps but keep the small prebuilt ones. The big ones
> are:
> > >> demo-allert-aggregator.war
> > >> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> > >> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> > >> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> > >> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
> > >>
> > >> Thats minimum changes to what we have today, just 5 readme updates,
> and
> > >> gives a distro size of less the 60Meg.
> > >>
> > >> For 1.0 do:
> > >> - change samples to be simple contribution jar's that can work in all
> > of
> > >> standalone, webapp distro, Geronimo
> > >> - maybe keep one existing webapp sample to demonstrate that style of
> > >> packaging
> > >> - fix the ClassLoader issues so that Tomcat deep integration works
> well
> > >> and
> > >> have a sample/documentation for deep integration
> > >>
> > >> That should give a 1.0 distro size of less than 50Meg.
> > >>
> > >> Note also, i'd like to cut the 0.99 branch and create RC1 in about 9
> > hours
> > >> so if anyone wants to go for something other than this for 0.99 thats
> > fine
> > >> by me but it needs to start getting done pretty smartly :)
> > >>
> > >> ...ant
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Ok, +1 for 1 given the time we have. I have to go and get some sleep.
> > But
> > > can do some of this first thing.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > >
> >
> > +1 to only keep the small prebuilt WARs for 0.99, and revisit that later
> > for 1.0
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Sebastien
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
> In line with option 1, i.e. fix the jars to build the wars as is, I've
> fixed
> the ant scripts for
>
> sample-calculator-webapp
> demo-alert-aggregator.war
>
> in the trunk and the 0.99 branch. Still left to do
>
> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
> sample-chat-webapp
>
> I'm going to do the demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war next but if anyone wants
> to have a go there is a template in the demo-alter-aggregator build.xml of
> how to run the sdo generator etc.
>
> I haven't changed the distribution to miss out the war files or fixed
> READMES yes.
>
> Simon
>
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On 8/24/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Simon Laws wrote:
> >
> >> I worry we'd not get anything other than 1/ done by tomorrow and even
> then
> >> the READMEs etc would have bugs. So my preference would be for 0.99 do
> 1/
> >> for the big webapps but keep the small prebuilt ones. The big ones are:
> >> demo-allert-aggregator.war
> >> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> >> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> >> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> >> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
> >>
> >> Thats minimum changes to what we have today, just 5 readme updates, and
> >> gives a distro size of less the 60Meg.
> >>
> >> For 1.0 do:
> >> - change samples to be simple contribution jar's that can work in all
> of
> >> standalone, webapp distro, Geronimo
> >> - maybe keep one existing webapp sample to demonstrate that style of
> >> packaging
> >> - fix the ClassLoader issues so that Tomcat deep integration works well
> >> and
> >> have a sample/documentation for deep integration
> >>
> >> That should give a 1.0 distro size of less than 50Meg.
> >>
> >> Note also, i'd like to cut the 0.99 branch and create RC1 in about 9
> hours
> >> so if anyone wants to go for something other than this for 0.99 thats
> fine
> >> by me but it needs to start getting done pretty smartly :)
> >>
> >> ...ant
> >>
> >>
> > Ok, +1 for 1 given the time we have. I have to go and get some sleep.
> But
> > can do some of this first thing.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
>
> +1 to only keep the small prebuilt WARs for 0.99, and revisit that later
> for 1.0
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
In line with option 1, i.e. fix the jars to build the wars as is, I've fixed
the ant scripts for
sample-calculator-webapp
demo-alert-aggregator.war
in the trunk and the 0.99 branch. Still left to do
demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
sample-chat-webapp
I'm going to do the demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war next but if anyone wants
to have a go there is a template in the demo-alter-aggregator build.xml of
how to run the sdo generator etc.
I haven't changed the distribution to miss out the war files or fixed
READMES yes.
Simon
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Simon Laws wrote:
>
>> I worry we'd not get anything other than 1/ done by tomorrow and even then
>> the READMEs etc would have bugs. So my preference would be for 0.99 do 1/
>> for the big webapps but keep the small prebuilt ones. The big ones are:
>> demo-allert-aggregator.war
>> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
>> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
>> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
>> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
>>
>> Thats minimum changes to what we have today, just 5 readme updates, and
>> gives a distro size of less the 60Meg.
>>
>> For 1.0 do:
>> - change samples to be simple contribution jar's that can work in all of
>> standalone, webapp distro, Geronimo
>> - maybe keep one existing webapp sample to demonstrate that style of
>> packaging
>> - fix the ClassLoader issues so that Tomcat deep integration works well
>> and
>> have a sample/documentation for deep integration
>>
>> That should give a 1.0 distro size of less than 50Meg.
>>
>> Note also, i'd like to cut the 0.99 branch and create RC1 in about 9 hours
>> so if anyone wants to go for something other than this for 0.99 thats fine
>> by me but it needs to start getting done pretty smartly :)
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>>
> Ok, +1 for 1 given the time we have. I have to go and get some sleep. But
> can do some of this first thing.
>
> Simon
>
>
+1 to only keep the small prebuilt WARs for 0.99, and revisit that later
for 1.0
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On 8/23/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/23/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I moved all the jars from calculator-webapp to tomcat/lib.
> > > calculator-webapp
> > > runs fine. What else is there that might cause a problem?
> > >
> > > Haleh
> > >
> > > On 8/23/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 8/22/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll start a different thread to discuss the more long term
> support
> > > for
> > > > > <implementation.web>.
> > > > >
> > > > > For now, comments inline to cover the immediate WAR size issue for
> > the
> > > > > 0.99 release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon Laws wrote:
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > 1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples -
> > currently
> > > > all
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the tuscany jars required
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring
> > the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that
> it's
> > a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a
> > > small
> > > > > > number of samples
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to
> the
> > > > > Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way,
> assuming
> > > that
> > > > > it works.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The problem is likely to be the "assuming that it works" as last
> time
> > i
> > > > tried this it didn't - there's various classloader issues. Changing
> to
> > > use
> > > > "deep integration" like we used to also seems like quite a big
> change
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > doing just moments before we cut a release so could we at least
> > postpone
> > > > looking at that till after this release? For this release I think
> I'm
> > in
> > > > favour of just picking a few samples and demos to not ship pre-built
> > and
> > > > documenting that in their README's as it seems like the most minimal
> > > > change.
> > > >
> > > > ...ant
> > > >
> > >
> > I've been having a bit of a play with this and it's not straighforward
> to
> > get this to happen in a nice way at the moment. What I was trying to do
> > was
> > knock all of the tuscany jars out of the war and have the deployment of
> > the
> > tuscany jar be a manual step.
> >
> > For some (classloader) reason the it seems to be a bit of an all or
> > nothing,
> > i.e. you have to have all of jars that were orignally in WEB-INF/lib in
> > tomcat/lib or have them all in the web itself. What I wanted to do was
> > package the non tuscany dependencies in the war to reduce the amount of
> > manual picking required when applying tuscany jars to tomcat, i.e. I
> was
> > prepared to go with "copy all of the modules knocking out jetty, tomcat
> > etc".
> >
> > Some options at the moment given where we are
> >
> > 1/ Just fix build.xml for each sample so that the wars can be built as
> is
> > and we don;t have to ship them.
> >
> > 2/ Variation on 1 - Fix and change the build.xml to build a minimal war
> > and
> > alongside that build either a directory or a zip of all the jars that
> need
> > to be dropped into tomcat/lib to get the sample to work.
> >
> > 2/ create the minimal war and give detailed manual instructions about
> > which
> > jars to pick out of the distro
> >
> > Anyone else have any other ideas.
>
>
> I worry we'd not get anything other than 1/ done by tomorrow and even then
> the READMEs etc would have bugs. So my preference would be for 0.99 do 1/
> for the big webapps but keep the small prebuilt ones. The big ones are:
> demo-allert-aggregator.war
> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
>
> Thats minimum changes to what we have today, just 5 readme updates, and
> gives a distro size of less the 60Meg.
>
> For 1.0 do:
> - change samples to be simple contribution jar's that can work in all of
> standalone, webapp distro, Geronimo
> - maybe keep one existing webapp sample to demonstrate that style of
> packaging
> - fix the ClassLoader issues so that Tomcat deep integration works well
> and
> have a sample/documentation for deep integration
>
> That should give a 1.0 distro size of less than 50Meg.
>
> Note also, i'd like to cut the 0.99 branch and create RC1 in about 9 hours
> so if anyone wants to go for something other than this for 0.99 thats fine
> by me but it needs to start getting done pretty smartly :)
>
> ...ant
>
Ok, +1 for 1 given the time we have. I have to go and get some sleep. But
can do some of this first thing.
Simon
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 8/23/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I moved all the jars from calculator-webapp to tomcat/lib.
> > calculator-webapp
> > runs fine. What else is there that might cause a problem?
> >
> > Haleh
> >
> > On 8/23/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/22/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'll start a different thread to discuss the more long term support
> > for
> > > > <implementation.web>.
> > > >
> > > > For now, comments inline to cover the immediate WAR size issue for
> the
> > > > 0.99 release.
> > > >
> > > > Simon Laws wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > 1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples -
> currently
> > > all
> > > > of
> > > > > the tuscany jars required
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring
> the
> > > > current
> > > > > war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that it's
> a
> > > > good
> > > > > idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a
> > small
> > > > > number of samples
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to the
> > > > Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way, assuming
> > that
> > > > it works.
> > >
> > >
> > > The problem is likely to be the "assuming that it works" as last time
> i
> > > tried this it didn't - there's various classloader issues. Changing to
> > use
> > > "deep integration" like we used to also seems like quite a big change
> to
> > > be
> > > doing just moments before we cut a release so could we at least
> postpone
> > > looking at that till after this release? For this release I think I'm
> in
> > > favour of just picking a few samples and demos to not ship pre-built
> and
> > > documenting that in their README's as it seems like the most minimal
> > > change.
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> >
> I've been having a bit of a play with this and it's not straighforward to
> get this to happen in a nice way at the moment. What I was trying to do
> was
> knock all of the tuscany jars out of the war and have the deployment of
> the
> tuscany jar be a manual step.
>
> For some (classloader) reason the it seems to be a bit of an all or
> nothing,
> i.e. you have to have all of jars that were orignally in WEB-INF/lib in
> tomcat/lib or have them all in the web itself. What I wanted to do was
> package the non tuscany dependencies in the war to reduce the amount of
> manual picking required when applying tuscany jars to tomcat, i.e. I was
> prepared to go with "copy all of the modules knocking out jetty, tomcat
> etc".
>
> Some options at the moment given where we are
>
> 1/ Just fix build.xml for each sample so that the wars can be built as is
> and we don;t have to ship them.
>
> 2/ Variation on 1 - Fix and change the build.xml to build a minimal war
> and
> alongside that build either a directory or a zip of all the jars that need
> to be dropped into tomcat/lib to get the sample to work.
>
> 2/ create the minimal war and give detailed manual instructions about
> which
> jars to pick out of the distro
>
> Anyone else have any other ideas.
I worry we'd not get anything other than 1/ done by tomorrow and even then
the READMEs etc would have bugs. So my preference would be for 0.99 do 1/
for the big webapps but keep the small prebuilt ones. The big ones are:
demo-allert-aggregator.war
demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
Thats minimum changes to what we have today, just 5 readme updates, and
gives a distro size of less the 60Meg.
For 1.0 do:
- change samples to be simple contribution jar's that can work in all of
standalone, webapp distro, Geronimo
- maybe keep one existing webapp sample to demonstrate that style of
packaging
- fix the ClassLoader issues so that Tomcat deep integration works well and
have a sample/documentation for deep integration
That should give a 1.0 distro size of less than 50Meg.
Note also, i'd like to cut the 0.99 branch and create RC1 in about 9 hours
so if anyone wants to go for something other than this for 0.99 thats fine
by me but it needs to start getting done pretty smartly :)
...ant
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On 8/23/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I moved all the jars from calculator-webapp to tomcat/lib.
> calculator-webapp
> runs fine. What else is there that might cause a problem?
>
> Haleh
>
> On 8/23/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/22/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll start a different thread to discuss the more long term support
> for
> > > <implementation.web>.
> > >
> > > For now, comments inline to cover the immediate WAR size issue for the
> > > 0.99 release.
> > >
> > > Simon Laws wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > 1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples - currently
> > all
> > > of
> > > > the tuscany jars required
> > > >
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring the
> > > current
> > > > war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that it's a
> > > good
> > > > idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a
> small
> > > > number of samples
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to the
> > > Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way, assuming
> that
> > > it works.
> >
> >
> > The problem is likely to be the "assuming that it works" as last time i
> > tried this it didn't - there's various classloader issues. Changing to
> use
> > "deep integration" like we used to also seems like quite a big change to
> > be
> > doing just moments before we cut a release so could we at least postpone
> > looking at that till after this release? For this release I think I'm in
> > favour of just picking a few samples and demos to not ship pre-built and
> > documenting that in their README's as it seems like the most minimal
> > change.
> >
> > ...ant
> >
>
I've been having a bit of a play with this and it's not straighforward to
get this to happen in a nice way at the moment. What I was trying to do was
knock all of the tuscany jars out of the war and have the deployment of the
tuscany jar be a manual step.
For some (classloader) reason the it seems to be a bit of an all or nothing,
i.e. you have to have all of jars that were orignally in WEB-INF/lib in
tomcat/lib or have them all in the web itself. What I wanted to do was
package the non tuscany dependencies in the war to reduce the amount of
manual picking required when applying tuscany jars to tomcat, i.e. I was
prepared to go with "copy all of the modules knocking out jetty, tomcat
etc".
Some options at the moment given where we are
1/ Just fix build.xml for each sample so that the wars can be built as is
and we don;t have to ship them.
2/ Variation on 1 - Fix and change the build.xml to build a minimal war and
alongside that build either a directory or a zip of all the jars that need
to be dropped into tomcat/lib to get the sample to work.
2/ create the minimal war and give detailed manual instructions about which
jars to pick out of the distro
Anyone else have any other ideas.
Simon
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>.
I moved all the jars from calculator-webapp to tomcat/lib. calculator-webapp
runs fine. What else is there that might cause a problem?
Haleh
On 8/23/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/22/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'll start a different thread to discuss the more long term support for
> > <implementation.web>.
> >
> > For now, comments inline to cover the immediate WAR size issue for the
> > 0.99 release.
> >
> > Simon Laws wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > 1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples - currently
> all
> > of
> > > the tuscany jars required
> > >
> > >
> > [snip]
> > > Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring the
> > current
> > > war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that it's a
> > good
> > > idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a small
> > > number of samples
> > >
> >
> > I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to the
> > Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way, assuming that
> > it works.
>
>
> The problem is likely to be the "assuming that it works" as last time i
> tried this it didn't - there's various classloader issues. Changing to use
> "deep integration" like we used to also seems like quite a big change to
> be
> doing just moments before we cut a release so could we at least postpone
> looking at that till after this release? For this release I think I'm in
> favour of just picking a few samples and demos to not ship pre-built and
> documenting that in their README's as it seems like the most minimal
> change.
>
> ...ant
>
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 8/22/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I'll start a different thread to discuss the more long term support for
> <implementation.web>.
>
> For now, comments inline to cover the immediate WAR size issue for the
> 0.99 release.
>
> Simon Laws wrote:
> [snip]
> > 1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples - currently all
> of
> > the tuscany jars required
> >
> >
> [snip]
> > Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring the
> current
> > war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that it's a
> good
> > idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a small
> > number of samples
> >
>
> I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to the
> Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way, assuming that
> it works.
The problem is likely to be the "assuming that it works" as last time i
tried this it didn't - there's various classloader issues. Changing to use
"deep integration" like we used to also seems like quite a big change to be
doing just moments before we cut a release so could we at least postpone
looking at that till after this release? For this release I think I'm in
favour of just picking a few samples and demos to not ship pre-built and
documenting that in their README's as it seems like the most minimal change.
...ant
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
I'll start a different thread to discuss the more long term support for
<implementation.web>.
For now, comments inline to cover the immediate WAR size issue for the
0.99 release.
Simon Laws wrote:
[snip]
> 1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples - currently all of
> the tuscany jars required
>
>
[snip]
> Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring the current
> war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that it's a good
> idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a small
> number of samples
>
I think we should just document how to copy the required JARs to the
Tomcat lib folder and run the stripped down WARs this way, assuming that
it works.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On 8/22/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ant elder wrote:
> > So not much consensus on what to do with this yet. The binary distro is
> > currently coming in at 107MB. Of that the following 5 samples and demo's
> > account for about 50MB:
> >
> > demo-allert-aggregator.war
> > demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> > sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> > sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> > sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
> >
> > Should we delete these, keep these, delete some of these, keep but don't
>
> > distribute pre-built artifacts? The three samples are quite similar so i
> > think at least one maybe two of them could be removed for this release
> and
> > then look at just having simple SCA contribution jar's for the samples
> and
> > demo's for 1.0. (at least one of these was contributed by a user so we
> > should try to keep that one)
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> >
>
> This is obviously an issue that we need to fix now. I have two questions:
>
> - Why are they so big? isn't that a problem in the samples themselves?
>
> - If all WARs hosting Tuscany apps are going to be so big, isn't that
> going to be a problem for a our users as soon as they create two or
> three of this WARs?
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
> The previous posts to this thread have established that there are concerns
with
1 - what is in the war that is build from these samples - currently all of
the tuscany jars required
2 - the mechanism in which web apps are built using tuscany - currently
using host-webapp
2 first. Sebastien has suggested that we follow the approach outlined in the
link he provided [1]
Its not clear to me that this implies that the war file goes but certainly
the mechansim by which servlets, jsps are connected to tuscany change. The
war file might have to go to make the mvn build work but that's a slightly
different issue I believe. If I understand correctly running a sample in
this mode would be a two phase process.
a) install tuscany support into you favourite app server host-geronimo,
host-tomcat
b) deploy ear, war, jars to the tuscany runtime(s) provided as part of this
integration, e.g ant's hot update runtime is an example of how this could be
done
1 in this case all of the runtime jars will be moved out of the sample
war/jar and into the hosting adapater. That leaves just the sample files and
web resources.
Doing 1 is a relatively straightforward exercise of refactoring the current
war into a slimmed down version. I'm still not convinced that it's a good
idea to remove the webapp samples and compress everything into a small
number of samples
Doing 2 properly is a little more time consuming.
Anyone given any thought to host-tomcat (I realize the geronimo integration
is in the pipeline) or to <implementation.web>. Can we use the
implementation.resource as a basis?
As the document at [1] is subject to change maybe we can still use the
host-webapp approach but just take ant's webapp distribution approach and
separate the samples from packaging all the jars. At least that way we start
to move toward the right model .I could spend a little time on this but if
someone is a way down the path I don't want to repeat effort.
Simon
[1] http://www.osoa.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3980
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
ant elder wrote:
> So not much consensus on what to do with this yet. The binary distro is
> currently coming in at 107MB. Of that the following 5 samples and demo's
> account for about 50MB:
>
> demo-allert-aggregator.war
> demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
> sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
>
> Should we delete these, keep these, delete some of these, keep but don't
> distribute pre-built artifacts? The three samples are quite similar so i
> think at least one maybe two of them could be removed for this release and
> then look at just having simple SCA contribution jar's for the samples and
> demo's for 1.0. (at least one of these was contributed by a user so we
> should try to keep that one)
>
> ...ant
>
>
This is obviously an issue that we need to fix now. I have two questions:
- Why are they so big? isn't that a problem in the samples themselves?
- If all WARs hosting Tuscany apps are going to be so big, isn't that
going to be a problem for a our users as soon as they create two or
three of this WARs?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
So not much consensus on what to do with this yet. The binary distro is
currently coming in at 107MB. Of that the following 5 samples and demo's
account for about 50MB:
demo-allert-aggregator.war
demo-mortgage-creditcheck.war
sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp.war
sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp.war
sample-calculator-webapp-ws.war
Should we delete these, keep these, delete some of these, keep but don't
distribute pre-built artifacts? The three samples are quite similar so i
think at least one maybe two of them could be removed for this release and
then look at just having simple SCA contribution jar's for the samples and
demo's for 1.0. (at least one of these was contributed by a user so we
should try to keep that one)
...ant
On 8/14/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, let me try to understand this. We are going to remove the -webapp
> samples from the release binary distribution (due to size constrains),
> but we are still going to continue supporting the -webapp story. Users
> can still see these samples on the source distributions, right ?
>
> I'm asking this because I think that our users DO use Tuscany in the
> scenario of a -webapp, and if we are going to remove the -webapp
> samples, users that are evaluating the new release might think we
> removed the webapp support, so we need to be clear.
>
> If the webapp story is changing, then we should document (wiki) and
> test so our users can migrate to the new story. If this requires
> <implementation.web> I'd think we should implement these changes when
> it's ready.
>
> As an alternative approach, what about creating a samples-webapp distro ?
>
> On 8/14/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > ant elder wrote:
> > > > On 8/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Anderson, Jeff T (CA - Toronto) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I like having the samples, in the absence of extensive
> documentation
> > > >>>
> > > >> these are key to understanding Tuscany...
> > > >>
> > > >>> I like the idea of packaging the samples as simple SCA
> contribution
> > > >>>
> > > >> jar's. I think keeping the footprint as little as possible is
> > > important,
> > > >> both in terms of optics and managing the complexity and
> understanding.
> > > >>
> > > >>> Just my humble opinion...
> > > >>> Jeff
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> +1 to keep the samples as simple SCA contribution JARs.
> > > >>
> > > >> The current webapp packaging is not quite right anyway as it's
> > > >> introducing a half baked mix of J2EE and SCA programming model
> inside
> > > >> the webapp.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd suggest the following:
> > > >>
> > > >> - Package SCA sample components as simple SCA contribution JARs,
> stay
> > > >> away from webapps.
> > > >>
> > > >> - To allow JSP and servlets to invoke SCA service component,
> support
> > > >> <implementation.web> Web components as described in [1].
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] http://www.osoa.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3980
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (now back on the dev list)
> > > >
> > > > Just to make sure I understand, as an example right now we have
> > > > sample-helloworld-ws-service and
> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp, do
> > > we
> > > > just delete the -webapp one?
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > > And then you can use the jar built by the
> > > > sample-helloworld-ws-service with either the the Geronimo/Tuscany
> > > > integration or our webapp runtime or with the standalone runtime we
> > > already
> > > > use it with today?
> > > >
> > > > That sounds like the way to go to me but that seems like quite a big
> > > change,
> > > > do we want to try to get this done in time for the upcoming release
> or
> > > wait
> > > > till after that and just make the changes for 1.0?
> > > >
> > > > ...ant
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I prefer to do it now. I'm not quite sure why it's a big change?
> > >
> > > Isn't it just about deleting Maven modules? we have equivalent samples
> > > already working with the standalone runtime right?
> > >
> > > Is the Geronimo integration ready to be included in the the release?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Sebastien
> >
> >
> > I also think sooner would be better so happy to help go for it.
> >
> > The list of current webapps is:
> >
> > demo-alert-aggregator
> > demo-mortgage-creditcheck
> > sample-calculator-webapp
> > sample-chat-webapp
> > sample-helloworld-dojo
> > sample-helloworld-jsonrpc
> > sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp
> > sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp
> >
> > Not sure we do have equivalent non-webapp samples for all those, i'll
> have a
> > go at and seeing if they all those sample- ones run ok out side of a
> > webapp.
> >
> > ..ant
> >
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
So, let me try to understand this. We are going to remove the -webapp
samples from the release binary distribution (due to size constrains),
but we are still going to continue supporting the -webapp story. Users
can still see these samples on the source distributions, right ?
I'm asking this because I think that our users DO use Tuscany in the
scenario of a -webapp, and if we are going to remove the -webapp
samples, users that are evaluating the new release might think we
removed the webapp support, so we need to be clear.
If the webapp story is changing, then we should document (wiki) and
test so our users can migrate to the new story. If this requires
<implementation.web> I'd think we should implement these changes when
it's ready.
As an alternative approach, what about creating a samples-webapp distro ?
On 8/14/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > ant elder wrote:
> > > On 8/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Anderson, Jeff T (CA - Toronto) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I like having the samples, in the absence of extensive documentation
> > >>>
> > >> these are key to understanding Tuscany...
> > >>
> > >>> I like the idea of packaging the samples as simple SCA contribution
> > >>>
> > >> jar's. I think keeping the footprint as little as possible is
> > important,
> > >> both in terms of optics and managing the complexity and understanding.
> > >>
> > >>> Just my humble opinion...
> > >>> Jeff
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> +1 to keep the samples as simple SCA contribution JARs.
> > >>
> > >> The current webapp packaging is not quite right anyway as it's
> > >> introducing a half baked mix of J2EE and SCA programming model inside
> > >> the webapp.
> > >>
> > >> I'd suggest the following:
> > >>
> > >> - Package SCA sample components as simple SCA contribution JARs, stay
> > >> away from webapps.
> > >>
> > >> - To allow JSP and servlets to invoke SCA service component, support
> > >> <implementation.web> Web components as described in [1].
> > >>
> > >> [1] http://www.osoa.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3980
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > (now back on the dev list)
> > >
> > > Just to make sure I understand, as an example right now we have
> > > sample-helloworld-ws-service and sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp, do
> > we
> > > just delete the -webapp one?
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > > And then you can use the jar built by the
> > > sample-helloworld-ws-service with either the the Geronimo/Tuscany
> > > integration or our webapp runtime or with the standalone runtime we
> > already
> > > use it with today?
> > >
> > > That sounds like the way to go to me but that seems like quite a big
> > change,
> > > do we want to try to get this done in time for the upcoming release or
> > wait
> > > till after that and just make the changes for 1.0?
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I prefer to do it now. I'm not quite sure why it's a big change?
> >
> > Isn't it just about deleting Maven modules? we have equivalent samples
> > already working with the standalone runtime right?
> >
> > Is the Geronimo integration ready to be included in the the release?
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Sebastien
>
>
> I also think sooner would be better so happy to help go for it.
>
> The list of current webapps is:
>
> demo-alert-aggregator
> demo-mortgage-creditcheck
> sample-calculator-webapp
> sample-chat-webapp
> sample-helloworld-dojo
> sample-helloworld-jsonrpc
> sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp
> sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp
>
> Not sure we do have equivalent non-webapp samples for all those, i'll have a
> go at and seeing if they all those sample- ones run ok out side of a
> webapp.
>
> ..ant
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 8/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ant elder wrote:
> > On 8/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Anderson, Jeff T (CA - Toronto) wrote:
> >>
> >>> I like having the samples, in the absence of extensive documentation
> >>>
> >> these are key to understanding Tuscany...
> >>
> >>> I like the idea of packaging the samples as simple SCA contribution
> >>>
> >> jar's. I think keeping the footprint as little as possible is
> important,
> >> both in terms of optics and managing the complexity and understanding.
> >>
> >>> Just my humble opinion...
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> +1 to keep the samples as simple SCA contribution JARs.
> >>
> >> The current webapp packaging is not quite right anyway as it's
> >> introducing a half baked mix of J2EE and SCA programming model inside
> >> the webapp.
> >>
> >> I'd suggest the following:
> >>
> >> - Package SCA sample components as simple SCA contribution JARs, stay
> >> away from webapps.
> >>
> >> - To allow JSP and servlets to invoke SCA service component, support
> >> <implementation.web> Web components as described in [1].
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.osoa.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3980
> >>
> >
> >
> > (now back on the dev list)
> >
> > Just to make sure I understand, as an example right now we have
> > sample-helloworld-ws-service and sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp, do
> we
> > just delete the -webapp one?
>
> Yes
>
> > And then you can use the jar built by the
> > sample-helloworld-ws-service with either the the Geronimo/Tuscany
> > integration or our webapp runtime or with the standalone runtime we
> already
> > use it with today?
> >
> > That sounds like the way to go to me but that seems like quite a big
> change,
> > do we want to try to get this done in time for the upcoming release or
> wait
> > till after that and just make the changes for 1.0?
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> >
>
> I prefer to do it now. I'm not quite sure why it's a big change?
>
> Isn't it just about deleting Maven modules? we have equivalent samples
> already working with the standalone runtime right?
>
> Is the Geronimo integration ready to be included in the the release?
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
I also think sooner would be better so happy to help go for it.
The list of current webapps is:
demo-alert-aggregator
demo-mortgage-creditcheck
sample-calculator-webapp
sample-chat-webapp
sample-helloworld-dojo
sample-helloworld-jsonrpc
sample-helloworld-ws-sdo-webapp
sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp
Not sure we do have equivalent non-webapp samples for all those, i'll have a
go at and seeing if they all those sample- ones run ok out side of a
webapp.
..ant
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
ant elder wrote:
> On 8/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Anderson, Jeff T (CA - Toronto) wrote:
>>
>>> I like having the samples, in the absence of extensive documentation
>>>
>> these are key to understanding Tuscany...
>>
>>> I like the idea of packaging the samples as simple SCA contribution
>>>
>> jar's. I think keeping the footprint as little as possible is important,
>> both in terms of optics and managing the complexity and understanding.
>>
>>> Just my humble opinion...
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> +1 to keep the samples as simple SCA contribution JARs.
>>
>> The current webapp packaging is not quite right anyway as it's
>> introducing a half baked mix of J2EE and SCA programming model inside
>> the webapp.
>>
>> I'd suggest the following:
>>
>> - Package SCA sample components as simple SCA contribution JARs, stay
>> away from webapps.
>>
>> - To allow JSP and servlets to invoke SCA service component, support
>> <implementation.web> Web components as described in [1].
>>
>> [1] http://www.osoa.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3980
>>
>
>
> (now back on the dev list)
>
> Just to make sure I understand, as an example right now we have
> sample-helloworld-ws-service and sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp, do we
> just delete the -webapp one?
Yes
> And then you can use the jar built by the
> sample-helloworld-ws-service with either the the Geronimo/Tuscany
> integration or our webapp runtime or with the standalone runtime we already
> use it with today?
>
> That sounds like the way to go to me but that seems like quite a big change,
> do we want to try to get this done in time for the upcoming release or wait
> till after that and just make the changes for 1.0?
>
> ...ant
>
>
I prefer to do it now. I'm not quite sure why it's a big change?
Isn't it just about deleting Maven modules? we have equivalent samples
already working with the standalone runtime right?
Is the Geronimo integration ready to be included in the the release?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 8/14/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Anderson, Jeff T (CA - Toronto) wrote:
> > I like having the samples, in the absence of extensive documentation
> these are key to understanding Tuscany...
> > I like the idea of packaging the samples as simple SCA contribution
> jar's. I think keeping the footprint as little as possible is important,
> both in terms of optics and managing the complexity and understanding.
> > Just my humble opinion...
> > Jeff
> >
> >
>
> +1 to keep the samples as simple SCA contribution JARs.
>
> The current webapp packaging is not quite right anyway as it's
> introducing a half baked mix of J2EE and SCA programming model inside
> the webapp.
>
> I'd suggest the following:
>
> - Package SCA sample components as simple SCA contribution JARs, stay
> away from webapps.
>
> - To allow JSP and servlets to invoke SCA service component, support
> <implementation.web> Web components as described in [1].
>
> [1] http://www.osoa.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3980
(now back on the dev list)
Just to make sure I understand, as an example right now we have
sample-helloworld-ws-service and sample-helloworld-ws-service-webapp, do we
just delete the -webapp one? And then you can use the jar built by the
sample-helloworld-ws-service with either the the Geronimo/Tuscany
integration or our webapp runtime or with the standalone runtime we already
use it with today?
That sounds like the way to go to me but that seems like quite a big change,
do we want to try to get this done in time for the upcoming release or wait
till after that and just make the changes for 1.0?
...ant
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Anderson, Jeff T (CA - Toronto) wrote:
> I like having the samples, in the absence of extensive documentation these are key to understanding Tuscany...
> I like the idea of packaging the samples as simple SCA contribution jar's. I think keeping the footprint as little as possible is important, both in terms of optics and managing the complexity and understanding.
> Just my humble opinion...
> Jeff
>
>
+1 to keep the samples as simple SCA contribution JARs.
The current webapp packaging is not quite right anyway as it's
introducing a half baked mix of J2EE and SCA programming model inside
the webapp.
I'd suggest the following:
- Package SCA sample components as simple SCA contribution JARs, stay
away from webapps.
- To allow JSP and servlets to invoke SCA service component, support
<implementation.web> Web components as described in [1].
[1] http://www.osoa.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3980
> ________________________________
>
> From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
> Sent: Mon 2007-08-13 14:55
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org; Tuscany Users
> Subject: Re: SCA distribution is really big now
>
>
>
> It would be good to get user 's view on this as well. I am re-posting to
> tuscany-user list since I am not sure if everyone monitors both lists.
>
> On 8/11/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Our SCA binary distribution is over 100Meg now and there's still
>> extensions
>> and dependencies I've not added yet. This seems a little big considering
>> we're trying to sell Tuscany as all svelte and light weight.
>>
>> So what to do? The reason its so big is that every webapp sample and demo
>> we
>> have ends up including a copy of most of the runtime and dependencies. One
>> solution could be to just ship fewer prebuilt webapp samples and demos.
>> Another could be to change the way we do those samples so that each
>> sample/demo is just a simple SCA contribution jar and you have to deploy
>> that to some Tuscany runtime. We've already the webapp runtime that would
>> work for that, and the Geronimo Tuscany support, and we could create
>> another standalone runtime if you don't want to use Tomcat or Geronimo.
>>
>> What do people think, does the size matter, are there some other things we
>> could do?
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>>
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
RE: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by "Anderson, Jeff T (CA - Toronto)" <je...@deloitte.ca>.
I like having the samples, in the absence of extensive documentation these are key to understanding Tuscany...
I like the idea of packaging the samples as simple SCA contribution jar's. I think keeping the footprint as little as possible is important, both in terms of optics and managing the complexity and understanding.
Just my humble opinion...
Jeff
________________________________
From: haleh mahbod [mailto:hmahbod@gmail.com]
Sent: Mon 2007-08-13 14:55
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org; antelder@apache.org; Tuscany Users
Subject: Re: SCA distribution is really big now
It would be good to get user 's view on this as well. I am re-posting to
tuscany-user list since I am not sure if everyone monitors both lists.
On 8/11/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Our SCA binary distribution is over 100Meg now and there's still
> extensions
> and dependencies I've not added yet. This seems a little big considering
> we're trying to sell Tuscany as all svelte and light weight.
>
> So what to do? The reason its so big is that every webapp sample and demo
> we
> have ends up including a copy of most of the runtime and dependencies. One
> solution could be to just ship fewer prebuilt webapp samples and demos.
> Another could be to change the way we do those samples so that each
> sample/demo is just a simple SCA contribution jar and you have to deploy
> that to some Tuscany runtime. We've already the webapp runtime that would
> work for that, and the Geronimo Tuscany support, and we could create
> another standalone runtime if you don't want to use Tomcat or Geronimo.
>
> What do people think, does the size matter, are there some other things we
> could do?
>
> ...ant
>
-----------------------------------------
**************************************************************************************
Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are
intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are
confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this
message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by
return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from
your system. Thank you.
Information confidentielle: Le présent message, ainsi que tout
fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son
ou de ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut
constituer une information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute
personne autre que le destinataire prévu que tout examen,
réacheminement, impression, copie, distribution ou autre
utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y est joint est
strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu,
veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de
courriel et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre
système. Merci.
****************************************************************
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>.
It would be good to get user 's view on this as well. I am re-posting to
tuscany-user list since I am not sure if everyone monitors both lists.
On 8/11/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Our SCA binary distribution is over 100Meg now and there's still
> extensions
> and dependencies I've not added yet. This seems a little big considering
> we're trying to sell Tuscany as all svelte and light weight.
>
> So what to do? The reason its so big is that every webapp sample and demo
> we
> have ends up including a copy of most of the runtime and dependencies. One
> solution could be to just ship fewer prebuilt webapp samples and demos.
> Another could be to change the way we do those samples so that each
> sample/demo is just a simple SCA contribution jar and you have to deploy
> that to some Tuscany runtime. We've already the webapp runtime that would
> work for that, and the Geronimo Tuscany support, and we could create
> another standalone runtime if you don't want to use Tomcat or Geronimo.
>
> What do people think, does the size matter, are there some other things we
> could do?
>
> ...ant
>
Re: SCA distribution is really big now
Posted by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>.
It would be good to get user 's view on this as well. I am re-posting to
tuscany-user list since I am not sure if everyone monitors both lists.
On 8/11/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Our SCA binary distribution is over 100Meg now and there's still
> extensions
> and dependencies I've not added yet. This seems a little big considering
> we're trying to sell Tuscany as all svelte and light weight.
>
> So what to do? The reason its so big is that every webapp sample and demo
> we
> have ends up including a copy of most of the runtime and dependencies. One
> solution could be to just ship fewer prebuilt webapp samples and demos.
> Another could be to change the way we do those samples so that each
> sample/demo is just a simple SCA contribution jar and you have to deploy
> that to some Tuscany runtime. We've already the webapp runtime that would
> work for that, and the Geronimo Tuscany support, and we could create
> another standalone runtime if you don't want to use Tomcat or Geronimo.
>
> What do people think, does the size matter, are there some other things we
> could do?
>
> ...ant
>