ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Boisvert <boisv...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Issue 10 / Versioning
Date Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:18:19 GMT


Sorry for the late email, we had an email outage last night.  If not 
sure if this is still relevant now given your earlier email exchanges 
with Assaf, but see my comments below to further clarify what I meant.

Lance Waterman wrote:
> I think what I hear you saying is that you want to be able to aggregate
> several versions of a BPEL process into a single service interface. Such
> that this aggregated service interface can serve as the interface for
> several BPEL process versions. I understand this however, what do you
> propose when the operation+endpoint are identical between process 
> versions?
> How does the engine know which one to route to ( and I don't want to 
> require
> a change to the client )?

Not really.  I simply want to be able to deploy and activate P(v1) and 
P(v2) simultaneously if they have no conflicting operation+endpoint 
tuples.  This is a development convenience and also leaves the 
flexibility and responsibility to the author of the processes to define 
what a "version" means.

The only real requirement that I see is for the engine to be able to 
detect conflicts during activation to prevent non-deterministic routing 
cases (see below).

> Say I change the signature of a Java class, do I need to change its name?
> Alex, I think using Java as an analogy is a good way to convey
> patterns/concepts however, when it's posted as a rhetorical question like
> this I think it comes across a bit condescending. I'm sure that wasn't 
> your
> intent but none the less it doesn't work for me. Now, to move forward 
> with
> your analogy, if I were able to deprecate ( i.e. retire ) specific
> operations - is that where you are going? Is this something that shows 
> up in
> the service interface? Does the operation just stop working for 
> deprecated
> operations?
My apologies, Lance, I did not mean to offend. 

To answer your questions, I do not see a need to deprecate/retire 
individual initiating operations within a process.  I think a process 
should either be completely activated or completely retired, meaning 
that all of its initiating operations should be either enabled or 
disabled.  And if one or more operation+endpoint conflicts with any 
other activated process (across all versions), the engine should prevent 
the activation of the process.


View raw message