| Hi Jerry,
I just realised that the tutorial you guys submitted is also on the SOA track, I had initially thought it would be for the Runtime track. I guess that there is clearly a possibility to converge the two, as there are obvious common points. Of course we need to make sure that we will provide the implementation to back our tutorial description before March, but other than that the merge seems rather logical. Basically if we add Swordfish and a description of it to the runtimes in the deployment part of the tutorial 368, we should cover everything. What do you think?
Regarding the number of presenters, this might not be the same as the number of authors but of course we should try and keep the both numbers to a decent size, to try not to exceed the number of participants :) On Nov 24, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Gerald Preissler wrote: Hi Adrian,
you bet me to the list, I wanted to send a mail explaining our intentions anyhow:
The tutorial that we proposed is not intended as a competition to the already existing proposal. Our intention was to address the Eclipse-based runtime as well as the Eclipse-based tooling. We did not want to change your proposal without discussing things first. I would have preferred to have this discussion before a submission, but with the deadline looming ahead we decided to submit our proposal independently and reconcile the two later on. Given the fact that there is only one tutorial slot available for the SOA track (AFAIK, at least), our hope is that we can merge all the topics that are relevant to the STP and Swordfish community.
One thing that might set this tutorial apart from all others: given the number of interested parties, we certainly have the potential to provide the best Instructor/Student ratio that I have seen yet :-)
What do you say, do you see the option of merging everything that is listed in the proposals into one?
Best regards
Jerry
On 24.11.08 16:19, "Adrian Mos" <adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi guys,
It's great to see so much interest in the tutorial! :) Since there is another related submission (the one by SOPERA) we might need to clearly differentiate the two. The way I see it, our proposal (368) is more focused on tooling and integration of the tools, whereas the SOPERA tutorial (351) is more focused on deployment on the Runtime platform. An idea might be to change the title in 351 so that "Developing" becomes "Deploying" even though of course in the tutorial one must also develop in order to deploy :) Similarly in 368, the title is "Towards Integrated SOA Development with Eclipse" so oriented on Development, even though it of course has some deployment.
I'm of course open to other ideas about how to differentiate the two tutorials, as I believe the focus in indeed different (and in any case one is focused on STP, the other one on Runtime / Swordfish).
Cheers,
Adrian.
On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Renat Zubairov wrote:
Hi,
That’s very nice idea indeed. I updated the Wiki page by adding Eclipse Runtime as one of the deployment targets. I think it would make sense to align our deployment options as soon as we will have implemented them, e.g. using WTP Servers API or similar. I think as soon as we will have an Incubator project under the STP main project we could submit some code there.
BR
Renat
On 24.11.08 12:56, "Vincent Zurczak" <vincent.zurczak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Renat, all.
Renat Zubairov a écrit :
Re: [stp-dev] STP Tutorial wiki page Hello Vincent,
Thank you for the very detailed explanation. Now it’s much more clear for me what do we assume under deployment during the STP Tutorial proposal..
If I understood correctly we had two options to either deploy it on Tuscany or OW2 PEtALS. First will support native SCA deployment where second will require some additional transformations (i.e. SCA to JBI bundles, etc).
However it might be not the only options we could have. I just recently talked with Oliver Wolf who is Project Lead on Swordfish project and it was like a “déjà vu” feeling, because he is right now planning to do the SOA tutorial proposal which looks 90% the same as what we are discussing right now. For me it was a very good news that we are thinking about the same things and have the same vision with Eclipse Runtime.
So, what I’ve got from him – there was an idea to show end2end implementation use case and deploy it on the Swordfish runtime.
Swordfish runtime AFAIK is based on OSGI and Service Mix 4. According to Oliver SCA support for Swordfish should be ready by the EC 2009. Apart from it Swordfish is official subproject of Eclipse Runtime Project therefore I assume we might expect a better tooling integration from Swordfish into eclipse infrastructure (e.g. Equinox). For example OSGI deployment/run use-cases are already supported in Eclipse.
What do you think about this option?
I guess we could present the three. :)
The two first ones I mentionned being external to Eclipse, the tutorial would just show that "we support them and this is how we work with them".
And since SwordFish is part of the Eclipse runtime project, we could spend a little more time to show it and explain it.
It's all about timing in fact.
Maybe we should try to provide a first timing prevision for each tutorial part (installation, time to explain things and let users manipulate the tools + possible questions).
Regards,
Vincent.
Also in the end what we are talking about are more or less our plans. Most of the things are not yet there and still need to be done. I strongly believe that if we could show convergence of STP and Runtime projects and our commitment to provide an Eclipse based integrated SOA solution, then it would be easier to find resources to implement what we have planed :)
BR
Renat
P.S. I remember that Stephane was thinking about greater evolving of Spring community inside the STP. Swordfish is based on Spring DM due to the fact that ServiceMix is based on it. Could it be that we could benefit somehow from it?
_______________________________________________
stp-dev mailing list
stp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-dev
_______________________________________________
stp-dev mailing list
stp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-dev
|
