ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Antoine Toulme" <atou...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Late binding vs. early binding
Date Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:26:05 GMT
Hi Matthieu,

it is possible that at deployment time, all the services have not been
deployed yet to the server. So when deploying, it would raise an error, and
that would induce an order in the deployment of the projects.

In the case that two projects call each other, it becomes impossible to
deploy them. (each one targets the other port type of the other, each one
defining the binding to its own port).

Instead, would it be possible to pause the process, and alarm the user that
a service/port/operation is missing, so that he has a change to deploy it ?

It would be great to validate the deploy.xml too, and issue some information
like "This process will need this port type: " + portTypeName.

What do you think ?

Antoine

On 6/14/07, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.riou@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with the intent but it has non trivial implications. In the
> current
> code base only the ILs now what a service really is, endpoints are
> completely opaque to the server, which is good. And sometimes even the IL
> doesn't know everything about an endpoint, only whatever we're hooked to
> knows (think Axis2 or the JBI bus).
>
> I guess we could have some sort of "best effort" tool that tries to guess
> which IL you want to use, tries to understand the format of your endpoints
> and all that stuff. But if we write it with only SOAP/HTTP in mind and
> somebody configures Axis2 to use JMS, the tool will fail even if your
> endpoint is fine.
>
> On 6/14/07, Paul Brown <paulrbrown@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/14/07, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.riou@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Currently when you deploy a process, very little gets loaded to save
> > memory
> > > (some people deploy a lot of processes without using them all). This
> > kind of
> > > goes with the dehydration but it's just that the default for now is to
> > never
> > > fully load a process as long as it's not used.
> > > However this has some side effects. Mostly you can never be sure after
> > > deployment that your process is fully okay, including the services
> that
> > it
> > > should invoke. Because the messaging layer loads the WSDL only at
> first
> > > invocation, you might get a nasty error there saying that the services
> > > declared in your deploy.xml don't exist at all in your WSDL. Which is
> > > usually true but it's the kind of things you'd rather find out at
> > deployment
> > > time.
> >
> > Hmmm.  Hmmmm.
> >
> > Well, this seems like functionality that should be part of the bpelc
> > step in the toolchain and not part of deployment.  It's a usability
> > nightmare to have to debug your process and accompanying metadata at
> > deployment time only, and in a production/secure environment, getting
> > access to logs may be inconvenient or impossible.  (This was part of
> > the motivation for bpelc as a commandline tool in the first place...)
> >
> > How about a "deploycheck" commandline tool or other such that provides
> > this functionality, either as an alternative to the less lazy loading
> > or as an adjunct?  (Seems like we could just use the same code, more
> > or less.)
> >
> > --
> > paulrbrown@gmail.com
> > http://mult.ifario.us/
> >
>



-- 
Intalio, the Open Source BPMS Company
<a href="http://www.intalio.com">http://www.intalio.com</a>
<a href="http://bpms.intalio.com">Community website: http://bpms.intalio.com</a>

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