ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthieu Riou" <matthieu.r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Versioning
Date Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:56:38 GMT
I can't see why you would want to have 2 versions of the same process both
active on different endpoints. Why not just having another process? Are you
thinking of particular use cases where this would make sense?

On 8/9/06, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry Lance, I still disagree.
>
> I think the engine should allow simultaneous deployment and activation of:
>
> P(v1) with operation "foo" on endpoint "bar"
> P(v2) with operation "foo" on endpoint "baz".
>
> or
>
> P(v1) with operation "foo" on endpoint "bar"
> P(v2) with operation "foz" on endpoint "bar".
>
> These are just two examples but they illustrate what I consider a valid
> use-cases.
>
> alex
>
>
> Lance Waterman wrote:
> > So if I understand correctly you are saying there should only be one
> > "active" process definition at any given point in time? From the
> example;
> > when P.v2 is deployed it is implied that P.v1.A becomes inactive and any
> > messages targeted at P.v1.A would fail to route within the engine.
> >
> > If the above statement holds true with everyone then I think we are in
> > agreement and we need to decide on a naming convention for these process
> > definition states.
> >
> > I have been using the convention "current" and I think Maciej suggested
> > "legacy" for the converse ( I would suggest "deprecated" as an
> > alternative
> > ).
> >
> > I think Alex prefers the terms "active" and "retired"?
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Lance
>
>

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