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: Proposed API change -- DAO
Date Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:55:09 GMT
Agreed, and it would be nice if the factory could be expressed as an engine
configuration property.

On 8/15/06, Maciej Szefler <mbs@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> While walking through the bpel-api module I have become convinced that
> the DAO interfaces do not really belong there: the sole dependency on
> these interfaces is in the BpelServer.setDAOConnectionFactory method and
> really the DAO represents an implementation detail of the server rather
> than a genuine concern of the integration layer using the IAPI. Hence,
> I'd like to propose that we move the DAO interfaces to a separate module
> and eliminate the setDAOConnectionFactory method from the public
> BpelServer interface.
>
> -maciej
>
>
> >
> On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:32 -0400, Maciej Szefler wrote:
> > Lance,
> >
> > We previously discussed the fact that the deployment methods on the
> > BpelServer interface were not stable / final. These changes were driven
> > by the fact that we had earlier introduced a new deployment descriptor /
> > packaging format that was more in-line with the DeploymentAPI document
> > and as a practical matter needed to eliminate the old PXE deployment
> > descriptor format to prevent confusion and maintain compatibility with
> > the JBI IL. I think on the deployment end we still have some ways to go
> > before we can consider the API to be stable, but on the whole I feel
> > that the changes I made were only getting us closer to the intent of the
> > group WRT deployment.
> >
> > -Maciej
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:47 -0600, Lance Waterman wrote:
> > > With this refactor I now see a public interface "DeploymentUnit" ( add
> > > into the trunk on 8/2 ) is no longer referenced by either of the IL
> > > implementations and so I question its use as a public interface. Also,
> > > BpelServer.deploy () has changed as well.
> > >
> > > I feel like the public API is thrashing  and I would like to formally
> > > ask that changes to the API be proposed on the mailing list. I think
> > > review is necessary on the public API.
> > >
> > > Thoughts - other suggests?
> > >
> >
>
>

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