ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Assaf Arkin" <ar...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Integration API
Date Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:22:35 GMT
On 6/1/06, Lance Waterman <lance.waterman@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a bit lost so let me try to give a concrete example. I am trying to
> understand the relationship between the EPR passed as a param here (
> BpelEngine.createMessageExchange() ) and what the ODE deployment tooling has
> registered into the ODE process definition repository. I am assuming that
> the ODE message router will use the EPR to lookup a process definition from
> the repository. That being said the EndpointReference in Maciej's API looks
> quite opaque and so I'm a bit lost as to how deployment tooling and client
> collaborate through this EPR. It seems like we need to define a client key
> for identifying a process within the ODE registry.

I thought those are one and the same (i.e. EPRs you register into the
process and the ones you use for message exchange), but I'll wait for
Maceij to respond on that.

If we use a bus, then the currency for communication is EPRs. The bus
won't have any provision specific to process engines, it will use EPRs
because they apply to any engine you deploy.

But perhaps I'm not understanding the question correctly.

Assaf

>
> Lance
>
> On 6/1/06, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/1/06, Lance Waterman <lance.waterman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On (3) "The deployment infrastructure will provide a way for associating
> > > EPRs ..." does the deployment infrastructure need to allow for
> > association
> > > or can it just generate the EPR? I was thinking the latter.
> >
> > It's a question of who gets to decide on the endpoint. If it's the
> > deployment infrastructure, there's less burden on the deployer. But
> > you can't know the endpoint in advance, you can't build anything
> > around that service unti after you deploy it and can extract the WSDL.
> >
> > Assaf
> >
> > >
> > > Lance
> > >
> > > On 6/1/06, Maciej Szefler <mbs@intalio.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Guillaume got (1) and (2). As for (3):
> > > > The integration layer provides a target EndpointReference object with
> > > > each invocation of the BPEL engine. The deployment infrastructure will
> > > > provide a way for associating EPRs with the endpoints implemented by
> > the
> > > > engine. The engine routes the message to the correct process by
> > > > comparing the EPRs of the deployed processes to the EPR provided in
> > the
> > > > message exchange object.
> > > >
> > > > -mbs
> > > > On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 15:24 -0600, Lance Waterman wrote:
> > > > > Thanks guys, I like this API. A couple of questions:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Not quite sure I follow how "
> > PartnerRoleMessageExchange.replyAsync()"
> > > > > works? This seems to imply the partner is dynamically changing the
> > > > signature
> > > > > of the service interface.
> > > > > 2) MyRoleMessageExchange.setClientData() - is this used to set
> > > > > "out-of-band"/partnerLink data (i.e. EPR,JMS properties, etc ...
)?
> > I
> > > > can
> > > > > get to this data from within a BPEL process using partnerLink in
a
> > > > <from>
> > > > > clause - correct?
> > > > > 3) I'm trying to correlate how an EPR fits into deployment. I'm
> > assuming
> > > > > that the EPR required for BpelEngine.createMessageExchange() is
> > > > > produced/queried by deploying a BPEL document. The deployment API
> > > > produces
> > > > > an EPR for each registered BPEL <process> definition. In your
API it
> > > > looks
> > > > > like you have a stub for deployment "BpelServer.deploy()" that
> > returns a
> > > > > QName. Is the assumption that the client translates the QName into
> > an
> > > > EPR?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lance
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/25/06, Matthieu Riou <matthieu.riou@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've just imported the revised version of the integration API
> > > > > > specified by Maciej (if somebody with the necessary karma reads
> > this,
> > > > > > Maciej's CLA has been received but he's the last one without
an
> > > > > > account) for review. He also brushed up the javadoc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comments are welcome (even just to say "Good job Maciej!" :-)
).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matthieu.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > CTO, Intalio
> > http://www.intalio.com
> >
>
>


-- 
CTO, Intalio
http://www.intalio.com

Mime
View raw message