synapse-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rajith Attapattu" <>
Subject Re: Synapse using SCA assembly model for configuration
Date Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:53:40 GMT

You sure want to do this? I hope Ant want kill me :)
Theoritically it makes sense, but the reality is that the tuscany code is
pretty complex. (atleast the last time I coded the JMS binding)
Judging by the spec I don't blame the code base as the complexity of the
spec naturally creeps in to the code base.

As a Tuscany comitter I shouldn't be saying this, but can we not experiment
with spring first?



On 7/24/07, Paul Fremantle <> wrote:
> I recently read Dan's blog entry on the SCA assembly model:
> That and some other discussions I've had made me think about maybe
> offering the SCA assembly model to configure Synapse. So it seems to
> me that you can draw a direct correlation between:
> Synapse Proxy and SCA Service
> Synapse Endpoint and SCA reference
> Synapse Mediator - a specific type of SCA Component
> Synapse Property - SCA Property
> If we were to make the XMLConfigurationBuilder pluggable then we could
> just use this as an alternative configuration language. We did talk
> about this in the beginning of Synapse [we discussed having a LEX/YACC
> style config language - which I would still LOVE if someone wants to
> do that - it would make a great Computer Science project]
> Anyway back to SCA, it seems to me that this would be a pretty nice
> alternative config model, using an independent third party language.
> I'm guessing that there is plenty of Tuscany code could help us
> implement this. Maybe we might do it jointly?
> So I'm imagining the existing runtime being *exactly* the same as
> today, but being able to use a subset of the SCA Assembly model to
> configure it. Maybe some of the SCA wizards on tusc-dev can jump in
> and let me know if this is feasible?
> Paul
> PS If someone is looking at
> and wondering where this
> is coming from I offer a few thoughts. Firstly, I'm always open to
> being proved wrong! Secondly, this would not be adding any layers of
> indirection... I'm mapping directly from SCA concepts into the Synapse
> runtime with this idea. Finally, I see nothing wrong with holding
> several inconsistent viewpoints at the same time :)
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> blog:
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform",
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message