Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tuscany.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ant.elder@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.182.191 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to
         :mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=wYirDpglYltj6FtGN8nokm66KfcT3HmNU1HPPyv83WkCJB+STf3DGyAwe1wKdUv2hM
         X3xiZ9Whd8FpILAsIE/LnWkq759i2mdz24CuU1g1ArNdjoPTqrQIsDriZc155kZBfRBJ
         n81Q1szlG/BWw1V1AQ1RsywNdreIKVihSJSbE=
Message-ID: <71e1b5740807020938w154f118i89e324e46f848345@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:38:16 +0100
From: "ant elder" <ant.elder@gmail.com>
Reply-To: antelder@apache.org
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Subject: Re: Grouping/Aggregating tuscany modules,
 was: Re: Tracking Tuscany extensions,
 was: Distribution zips and what they contain, was: SCA runtimes
Cc: tuscany-dev <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <7933D547DE1740D39099E26184898316@rfengt60p>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_1094_26190753.1215016696997"
References: <71e1b5740801071003maa5b07cnff914f38d3fc4280@mail.gmail.com>
	 <486A1057.2070807@apache.org>
	 <71e1b5740807010804i65634713waa226ef96ae7706b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <A2079D9E1EA64E96A86B9CD858682FEB@rfengt60p>
	 <71e1b5740807011651m1c56bd29hf830115df632647c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <2A32A40F39B1471F80ABF4EE386045C7@rfengt60p>
	 <71e1b5740807012358v28b33a37h1cb7afc50959ea0d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <A5067E7803B3444A835DBEA38C32908C@rfengt60p>
	 <71e1b5740807020905n4cdcfc60w9539a67a7be9117c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7933D547DE1740D39099E26184898316@rfengt60p>

------=_Part_1094_26190753.1215016696997
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Raymond Feng <enjoyjava@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> It seems that the fundamental difference we're having is whether two
> tuscany features can contain the same module. For example, if I build the
> web service feature and jsonrpc feature, both of them would contain core-spi
> and databinding modules.
>

Thats not how i was thinking it would look like, i didn't expect the jsonrpc
or ws ones would include those core-spi or databinding classes. To use a ws
feature you'd also need to use the tuscany-runtime and tuscany-scdl jars.

   ...ant

------=_Part_1094_26190753.1215016696997
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Raymond Feng &lt;<a href="mailto:enjoyjava@gmail.com">enjoyjava@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">


<div style="padding-right: 10px; padding-left: 10px; padding-top: 15px;" bgcolor="#ffffff" name="Compose message area">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Hi,</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">It seems that&nbsp;the fundamental difference we&#39;re 
having is whether two tuscany features can contain the same module. For example, 
if I build the web service feature and jsonrpc feature, both of them would 
contain core-spi and databinding modules.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Thats not how i was thinking it would look like, i didn&#39;t expect the jsonrpc or ws ones would include those core-spi or databinding classes. To use a ws feature you&#39;d also need to use the tuscany-runtime and tuscany-scdl jars.<br>
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; ...ant <br><br></div></div>

------=_Part_1094_26190753.1215016696997--