Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Eclipse Projects » Service Oriented Architecture Tools Platform (STP) » Re: [stp-newsgroup] SCA v0.95 EMF model contribution?
Re: [stp-newsgroup] SCA v0.95 EMF model contribution? [message #587249] Thu, 24 August 2006 09:20
Daniel Berg is currently offline Daniel Berg
Messages: 19
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 00492AAE852571D4_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

The move from 0.95 to 0.95++ should not be a large impact for
implementation clients. It is hard to estimate the amount of changes at
the system level (i.e., system installation and configuration). I do know
that this portion of the model will undergo further changes. We will not
be focusing on these changes at this time.

As far as moving to 0.95 (or actually 0.96) we are currently working on
the changes as we speak. This work should be completed and tested by
Sept. 15. At this time we will ensure all of the core models have been
updated in the builds.

I would still like to see a list of components that are using the models
and what portions of the models are being used. It would be helpful to
have a list of anticipated components as well.

Regards,
Dan





Oisin Hurley <ohurley@iona.com>
Sent by: stp-newsgroup-bounces@eclipse.org
08/22/2006 10:04 PM
Please respond to
"Gateway between eclipse.stp and stp-newsgroup"
<stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org>


To
"Gateway between eclipse.stp and stp-newsgroup"
<stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org>
cc

Subject
Re: [stp-newsgroup] SCA v0.95 EMF model contribution?






> We are updating the schemas and models now to react to the 0.95
> (looking at 0.96 now as well). For the most part the changes are
> aligned with the direction that we wanted.

Yep.

> That is that Composite has been added as a first class type. The
> big change is that Module, EntryPoint, ExternalReference, and
> ModuleComponent are removed. The main concepts still in the spec
> are the following:
>
> Composite
> Component
> Implementation
> ComponentType
> Service
> Reference
> Interface
> Binding
> Wire
>
> Composite is an implementation and can be set as the implementation
> of a component. EntryPoints have been replaced with Service and
> ExternalService has been replaced with Reference. Composites
> support "includes" semantics to enable teams to divide the content
> of a Composite into more manageable bits. When a Composite is
> included in another Composite all of its contents are "absorbed"
> into the definition of the containing Composite. Therefore, the
> Composite is nothing more than a container in this situation.
>
> The spec hasn't changed Subsystem too much except to remove
> ModuleComponent and SystemWire. However, there is still a great
> deal of churn around the deployment model in SCA so we are going to
> avoid this area of the model for now until the specification
> settles on an approach.

Agreed on the deployment churn - this is something that will need to
settle naturally
in the spec. As you say the changes are quite compatible with the
current Core approach,
but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be trivial to move the
code :) Do you think
there will be a big impact on the core code as it exists right now?
Is the transition
to a 0.95++ version of the spec a bumpy one from the implementation
perspective?

Is it feasible to construct a roadmap from the current Core state to
a 0.95++ compliant
state? - the reason I ask is that if you can put a roadmap together
then we may be
able to distribute the task of making the transition happen.

cheers
--oh

_______________________________________________
stp-newsgroup mailing list
stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-newsgroup


--=_alternative 00492AAE852571D4_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The move from 0.95 to 0.95++ should
not be a large impact for implementation clients. &nbsp;It is hard to estimate
the amount of changes at the system level (i.e., system installation and
configuration). &nbsp;I do know that this portion of the model will undergo
further changes. &nbsp;We will not be focusing on these changes at this
time.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">As far as moving to 0.95 (or actually
0.96) we are currently working on the changes as we speak. &nbsp;This work
should be completed and tested by Sept. 15. &nbsp;At this time we will
ensure all of the core models have been updated in the builds.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I would still like to see a list of
components that are using the models and what portions of the models are
being used. &nbsp;It would be helpful to have a list of anticipated components
as well.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Oisin Hurley &lt;ohurley@iona.com&gt;</b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: stp-newsgroup-bounces@eclipse.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">08/22/2006 10:04 PM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
&quot;Gateway between eclipse.stp and stp-newsgroup&quot; &lt;stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org&gt;</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&quot;Gateway between eclipse.stp and
stp-newsgroup&quot; &lt;stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org&gt;</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [stp-newsgroup] SCA v0.95 EMF model
contribution?</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>&gt; We are updating the schemas and models now to
react to the 0.95 &nbsp;<br>
&gt; (looking at 0.96 now as well). &nbsp;For the most part the changes
are &nbsp;<br>
&gt; aligned with the direction that we wanted.<br>
<br>
Yep.<br>
<br>
&gt; &nbsp;That is that Composite has been added as a first class type.
&nbsp;The &nbsp;<br>
&gt; big change is that Module, EntryPoint, ExternalReference, and &nbsp;<br>
&gt; ModuleComponent are removed. &nbsp;The main concepts still in the
spec &nbsp;<br>
&gt; are the following:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Composite<br>
&gt; Component<br>
&gt; Implementation<br>
&gt; ComponentType<br>
&gt; Service<br>
&gt; Reference<br>
&gt; Interface<br>
&gt; Binding<br>
&gt; Wire<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Composite is an implementation and can be set as the implementation
&nbsp;<br>
&gt; of a component. &nbsp;EntryPoints have been replaced with Service
and &nbsp;<br>
&gt; ExternalService has been replaced with Reference. &nbsp;Composites
&nbsp;<br>
&gt; support &quot;includes&quot; semantics to enable teams to divide the
content &nbsp;<br>
&gt; of a Composite into more manageable bits. &nbsp;When a Composite is
&nbsp;<br>
&gt; included in another Composite all of its contents are &quot;absorbed&quot;
&nbsp;<br>
&gt; into the definition of the containing Composite. &nbsp;Therefore,
the &nbsp;<br>
&gt; Composite is nothing more than a container in this situation.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The spec hasn't changed Subsystem too much except to remove &nbsp;<br>
&gt; ModuleComponent and SystemWire. &nbsp;However, there is still a great
&nbsp;<br>
&gt; deal of churn around the deployment model in SCA so we are going to
&nbsp;<br>
&gt; avoid this area of the model for now until the specification &nbsp;<br>
&gt; settles on an approach.<br>
<br>
Agreed on the deployment churn - this is something that will need to &nbsp;<br>
settle naturally<br>
in the spec. As you say the changes are quite compatible with the &nbsp;<br>
current Core approach,<br>
but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be trivial to move the &nbsp;<br>
code :) &nbsp;Do you think<br>
there will be a big impact on the core code as it exists right now? &nbsp;<br>
Is the transition<br>
to a 0.95++ version of the spec a bumpy one from the implementation &nbsp;<br>
perspective?<br>
<br>
Is it feasible to construct a roadmap from the current Core state to &nbsp;<br>
a 0.95++ compliant<br>
state? - the reason I ask is that if you can put a roadmap together &nbsp;<br>
then we may be<br>
able to distribute the task of making the transition happen.<br>
<br>
&nbsp;cheers<br>
&nbsp; --oh<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
stp-newsgroup mailing list<br>
stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org<br>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-newsgroup<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
--=_alternative 00492AAE852571D4_=--
Previous Topic:Re: [stp-newsgroup] SCA v0.95 EMF model contribution?
Next Topic:Re: [stp-newsgroup] SCA v0.95 EMF model contribution?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Apr 23 19:54:27 EDT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01567 seconds