cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Diephouse <...@envoisolutions.com>
Subject Re: Tooling Proposal [was Re: tooling and service model]
Date Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:23:37 GMT
Hiya,

James Mao wrote:

> I still think that Tools should be an independent module, it should 
> not after rt, the benefit of independence is that you can use tools 
> any time you want.
> And ideally the tools can be split as an outside project, so when 
> someone want to use just tools, what they need is just include the 
> cxf-tools.jar and cxf-common.jar in their classpath,
> there will no cxf-rt.jar or others will be needed, one thing i can 
> imagine is that if you want to use tools in a WebService GUI, i think 
> STP project already did so, is you include just two jars not a lot.
>
I really disagree. There is no way to make it a completely separate 
module unless we have duplicate code which does wsdl/jax-ws processing 
in the tools. This causes more maintenance and more bugs in the long 
run, so I'm pretty -1 against that. And, as I mentioned before, this 
isn't that much more code to include. We could even put together a 
bundled jar if people are really concerned about too many jars. I also 
don't like the current approach because the jax-ws generation isn't 
associated with the jax-ws module in any way, and it seems to me thats 
where the generators should be.

> About ServiceModel, I think it should also be an independent module, 
> and for tools or rt, i think it'll be great if we have an plug-able 
> api, so the tools and rt are not directly reference ServiceModel, and 
> if you want to replace the ServiceModel with other Model(Wooden) will 
> be possible.
> For the builder which build servicemodel should stay in servicemodel, 
> just like Wsdl4j, they provider a model and also provide a builder.

That misses the whole point of the service model. The point of the 
service model is that wsdl 1.1, wsdl 2, and classes all get converted 
into the service model and then artifacts are generated from that.

- Dan

>
> Cheers.
> James.
>
>
> Daniel Kulp 写道:
>
>> The BIGGEST change, and probably the one requiring the most work, is 
>> regarding the testutils module.  
>> We currently build the testutils modules before the API and RT 
>> modules so that tests in those modules can access the stuff that is 
>> generated "once" in the testutils.    If the code generators are not 
>> available until after rt, ALL the tests in the rt and api packages 
>> will need to be updated to use non-generated stuff.    That will be a 
>> lot of work, although not a bad idea to completely remove the jax-ws 
>> dependencies....
>>
>> That's something that DEFINITELY needs to be thought about and 
>> addressed in the proposal.
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Monday September 25 2006 3:29 pm, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> The current dependency path will change as part of the proposal. The
>>> path will then be API <- RT <- Tools. The JAX-WS module would then
>>> contain a default plugin profile for the tools to generate JAX-WS
>>> artifacts. This is why I said we should copy tools to tools2: that way
>>> we can change the dependency path without breaking the build for a 
>>> week :-)
>>>
>>> - Dan
>>>
>>> Liu, Jervis wrote:
>>>    
>>>
>>>> Hi Dan, one more question, I am not sure how its going to work if 
>>>> tools
>>>> depened on core. Based on our current dependency path, tools <- API <-
>>>> rt, if  we make tools depending on rt, isnt it a circular dependency?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:    Liu, Jervis
>>>> Sent:    Sat 9/23/2006 3:57 PM
>>>> To:    cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Subject:    RE: Tooling Proposal [was Re: tooling and service model]
>>>>
>>>> Hi Dan, The plan looks good to me. I had a chat with Jim, we 
>>>> estimate the
>>>> item 1 to 5 should be no more than a week's work (or sth around 
>>>> that). In
>>>> a previous thread, James and Jim already mentioned that they are
>>>> interested in working on this, I may also want to pick up some 
>>>> taskes in
>>>> the area once I get the JAW-WS handler stories done. Regarding item 6,
>>>> the replacement of code model, the work itself should be 
>>>> straightforward,
>>>> just a lot of changes involved, so its a bit hard to give an 
>>>> estimate at
>>>> this moment, but we shall know once we are starting working on this.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, are we still planing anything for next month's Apache-con? I 
>>>> am not
>>>> sure how this can be done without being able to publish CXF 
>>>> snapshot to
>>>> public repository.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jervis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:    Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
>>>> Sent:    9/23/2006 (???) 1:55 ??
>>>> To:    cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Subject:    Re: Tooling Proposal [was Re: tooling and service model]
>>>>
>>>> I don't know why it would be considered taboo to bring up reasons for
>>>> not refactoring the tools like that. There are perfectly valid reasons
>>>> to want to avoid doing this - like having limited resources or just 
>>>> not
>>>> caring about the feature or having a schedule the project is trying to
>>>> adhere to. I think its best to bring them up and discuss them.
>>>>
>>>> With that said, I do think there are significant benefits from a 
>>>> longer
>>>> term point of view to refactor the tooling like I've proposed - like
>>>> reduction of code[1] and extensibility. I also don't think it would be
>>>> that hard for someone to do. I am even willing to work on it myself...
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> - Dan
>>>>
>>>> 1. While XFire tooling doesn't have quite as many features as the 
>>>> Celtix
>>>> tooling, it does come in at 2K lines of code, compared to 20K with
>>>> Celtix. Thats a significant difference that I dont' think can be
>>>> accounted for by features alone.
>>>>
>>>> Bacon, Stephanos wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>> So I'm guessing that by bringing iona's rationale for not 
>>>>> refactoring the
>>>>> tools, you probably broke some kind of apache taboo.
>>>>>
>>>>> I get the impression that in Apache the normal kind of "why waste 
>>>>> time
>>>>> rewriting something that works" kind of argument doeant hold water
>>>>> because there is no concept of schedule.  If the result is cleaner 
>>>>> code,
>>>>> then there is a good arument for doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect you'll get flamed :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> -steph
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Lin, Bozhong
>>>>> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org <cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Fri Sep 22 02:22:39 2006
>>>>> Subject: RE: Tooling Proposal [was Re: tooling and service model]
>>>>>
>>>>> I also agree that it makes a lot of sense to leverage current Celtix
>>>>> tooling implementation and to do any refactoring only for meeting new
>>>>> requirements. These tools are fundamental to application users and 
>>>>> IONA
>>>>> has spent tremendous effort in the past year to maintain and tune the
>>>>> Celtix tools, making sure that it passes all kinds of complex WSDL 
>>>>> and
>>>>> Schema, including many issues reported by Celtix users. [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Bo
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] 
>>>>> http://forge.objectweb.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=192&atid=350241
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Dan Diephouse [mailto:dan@envoisolutions.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:05 PM
>>>>>> To: cxf-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Tooling Proposal [was Re: tooling and service model]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. If we are to write a new tool from scratch, what are the
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>>
>>>>>> feature list we have in mind, and how long do we expect to
>>>>>> reach this feature list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not what I'm proposing at all. I too feel this would be 
>>>>>> silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is what I'm proposing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  1. Rewrite the generation part of the tooling to use the Service
>>>>>>     model instead of the wsdl. This would involve using the
>>>>>>     ServiceFactory to build a ServiceModel and then writing
>>>>>> out class
>>>>>>     files from there.
>>>>>>  2. Have tools depend on the core for the service model and put each
>>>>>>     frontend's generation plugins in the frontend themselves. Moving
>>>>>>     the service model to a separate module or common
>>>>>> doesn't make any
>>>>>>     sense whatsoever because we still need to depend on the
>>>>>>     ServiceFactorys which are in the frontend, so there will be a
>>>>>>     dependency on core.
>>>>>>  3. Add SOAP 1.2 support to the SoapBindingFactory
>>>>>>  4. Add WSDL 2 support to the core (WSDL2ServiceBuilder, etc)
>>>>>>  5. Do this refactoring in a tools2 module. While I don't anticipate
>>>>>>     that this is a lot of work, this will help us get around the
>>>>>>     circular dependency issues and allow us to temporarily
>>>>>> break a few
>>>>>>     things.
>>>>>>  6. Extra credit: use the CodeModel from Sun instead of our own.
>>>>>>     Having our own creates unnecessary work and it is also
>>>>>> too tied to
>>>>>>     JAX-WS to be useful outside of it. If you look at JAXB, a whole
>>>>>>     host of plugins have arose partly because they use this
>>>>>> code model
>>>>>>     that anyone can plug into. As its really not a lot of
>>>>>> work to use
>>>>>>     it instead of our, I think we should.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we can do this relatively easily and its not as big a 
>>>>>> deal as
>>>>>> people are making it out to be. The Celtix tooling is good,
>>>>>> and I don't
>>>>>> want to rewrite it all, I merely want to evolve it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> - Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Dan Diephouse
>>>>>> (616) 971-2053
>>>>>> Envoi Solutions LLC
>>>>>> http://netzooid.com
>>>>>>           
>>>>>
>>
>>   
>
>


-- 
Dan Diephouse
(616) 971-2053
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com


Mime
View raw message