ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lance Waterman" <lance.water...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Issue 10 / Versioning
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:18:13 GMT
I think if P(v1) and P(v2) have different operation+endpoint then P(v2)
should be a new process definition ( name/namespace ) and not a new version.
It seems like P(v2) is trying to define a new interface for P(v1). What
happens if P(v1) and P(v2) do have the same operations and both are active?
I think in the typical use case we are trying to solve ( i.e. the client app
is not required to change )..


On 8/8/06, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com> wrote:
> Maciej Szefler wrote:
> > I think that clarifies it, and also suggests that our terminology is not
> > the best. The things that is confusing is that the retired processes are
> > not "inactive". Lance's 'current' is better in this respect, but has no
> > good opposite (perhaps "legacy").
> >
> Retired only means that you cannot create new instances -- existing
> instances remain active and are allowed to complete normally.  This
> terminology is already used in other widely available process engines
> and that's why I've been using it.
> Again, I don't understand why we need the concept of "current" since you
> only need to define which process is logically hooked to a given
> operation+endpoint for routing purposes.
> Or said another way, I don't understand why you could not have P (v1)
> and P (v2) both activated at the same time if they do not share the same
> operation+endpoints.
> alex

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message