On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 14:23, Andrew Lee Rubinger <alr@alrubinger.com> wrote:
Sounds to me like this is something to be broken off from Arquillian honestly.  If we draw the bounds of Arquillian to be:

"An adaptor between test lifecycle and backing container lifecycle, with additional services support"

...then it sounds like the logic of doing deployment (to be reused by other projects) should live outside Arquillian, and be consumed both by these other projects and Arquillian itself.

In that case we'd reopen the discussion of a deployment abstraction project to be shared by all.

I agree that the container adapters can be viewed as an independent ecosystem from Arquillian proper, but the implications of having yet another project, I think, are too much to handle logistically atm (another name, another project site, eek).

To strengthen that point, the pool of developers working on adapters for uses outside of Arquillian is likely the same set as those working on the adapters for the purpose of using them in Arquillian. So, at least for now, I think the container adapters should be a subproject of the Arquillian brand (Arquillian Containers)...similar to ShrinkWrap Descriptors. It may get more of an identity in the long run, but let's focus on the technical requirements before getting caught up in organizational ones.

...that's, at least, my advice for how to make this succeed.

Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597