Re: [sca-assembly] ISSUE 5: component type allows to specify wire targetson references

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Scott,

Thanks for opening the debate on this
one.

I think that may main objection here
is that if this metadata is NOT included into the componentType information,
then I believe we are into the business
of creating a separate set of metadata (Let me give it a bad name -
"implementationDeploymentData").
 This does not seem to simplify anything - I argue that it makes it
much more complex.

Now, for each implementation type, I
not only have to specify how the component type is computed from the 
implementation artifact(s), I also have
to specify how the "implementationDeploymentData" is computed
as well.

How did this help anyone?  What
is achieved by the separation of the data?  In my view, nothing except
a pile of work.

Not only do I have to say how the implementationDeploymentData
is computed - I also have to say how its values
can be overridden when I reuse the implementation
in some new context.

For me, the whole thing is simply and
easily handled via the componentType metadata - one single batch
of metadata about the implementation,
which contains configuration defaults in addition to the declaration of
the configuration points of the implementation.
 All that's needed is a single definition of the rules by which a
component's configuration overrides
the default values and we're done...


Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	Scott Vorthmann <scottv@tibco.com>
To:	OASIS Assembly <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	02/12/2008 07:55
Subject:	[sca-assembly] ISSUE 5: component type allows to specify wire targets on references

---

Re: my action item 2008-10-30-5, to create a proposal for a potential  
solution for issue 5

I've been trying to reconstruct our discussion from the F2F, but I  
need a little help from others present.  (I cannot find my notes,
and  
they were pretty minimal in any case.)

According to my recollection, Mike likes wire targets on references in
 
a componentType to support what I'll call the "PHP use-case":
a very  
simple deployment mechanism of dropping files in a folder.  In that
 
scenario, the developer and deployer are likely to be the same user,  
so the developer may reasonably know what services the deployer has  
deployed.

I don't dispute the use-case, but I suggested (IIRC) that the simple  
deployment mechanism would necessarily consist of generating some  
deployment artifacts from the annotated PHP script dropped in the  
folder, and those generated artifacts need not be limited to a  
ComponentType; a deployment Composite could just as easily be  
generated, and that could easily represent the wire that the deployer  
included via annotation.  Put another way, PHP script annotations
need  
not be restricted to producing a ComponentType, and could, in fact,  
produce a default deployment Composite.

This is where my memory runs out, and I'd like to ask Mike to remind  
me what his counterpoint was... I've lost it.

I suggest that we carry this discussion on via email, rather than  
wasting time on the call.

Scott


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU