tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Venkata Krishnan" <for.svkr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: SCA Tools
Date Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:24:28 GMT
Hi Jeremy / Jim, first thanks for those answers.

I am able to understand your perspectives.  But just that one more
question.  If we do not generate a WSDL what do we publish for clients who
which to connect to this component's service?  How would client applications
know about the service's interfaces and semantics?

Thanks

- Venkat

On 8/1/06, Jim Marino <jmarino@myromatours.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 1, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 2006, at 12:43 AM, Venkata Krishnan wrote:
> >
> >> Jim :-)))..
> >>
> >> Please help me understand the scope of "not required".  If
> >> something is not
> >> required then why have it in the first place?  Are these things no
> >> longer
> >> relevant to the current Tuscany-Java?
> >
> > Jim is echoing a goal that SCA should be simple enough to use and
> > configure that additional tooling should not be required. For
> > example, I should be able to look at a SCDL file and understand
> > what it is doing, or I should be able to work with simple Java
> > classes and have the runtime figure out what to do.
> >
> In the spec group we called this type of user the "notepad"
> developer. I think this is an important goal for Tuscany as well. For
> the SCDL I would probably go further and say in most cases it should
> be trivial to hand-edit.
>
> > That's not to say that tooling cannot help - a specialized tool can
> > make that SCDL file easier to view or edit, an IDE can make editing
> > Java easier. But tools should be there to assist rather than be
> > required because the underlying technology is so complex.
> >
> > Take for example, java2wsdl. If I am a simple Java developer, there
> > is a good chance I do not know WSDL and have no interest in being
> > forced to learn it. But the machinery here needs WSDL to
> > interoperate with other systems. We can put WSDL in the user's face
> > by having a tool that generates WSDL that they need to run as part
> > of a build; alternatively, we can have the runtime handle all the
> > WSDL stuff under the covers leaving the user in their Java comfort-
> > zone. I think the latter is better, although we will still need the
> > tool for those users who do want to use WSDL explicitly.
> >
> Both cases I think are important to support (hence "not required"),
> although I think we should make more effort on the latter since, as
> Jeremy said, most users probably don't have a need  to see the WSDL
> in bottom-up approaches. For top-down development, we will need to
> support dealing with WSDL but should make that as straightforward as
> possible.
>
> On the general question of whether to have something if it is not
> required, I imagine most extensions in Tuscany will follow this pattern.
>
> Jim
> > --
> > Jeremy
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message