Matthieu Riou wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Tammo van Lessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
a) What is the scenario for deploying a retired process? Isn't that
handled by process versioning?
That was in the old sense of retiring, when retiring was actually what we
call deactivating now. The idea was that you could deploy processes without
wanting them to be active in the engine, I'm not aware of anybody wanting
this feature so I wouldn't mind removing it (especially now that we have
dehydration).
a1) I'm a correctly assuming that <active> and <retired> model a tri-state
attribute?
I have hard time figuring out what a non-retired non-active state would be.
Wouldn't this simply be 'inactive'?
| active | retired | meaning
------------------------------------------------------
| false | false | process deployed but inactive,
| | | could be enabled via PMAPI
------------------------------------------------------
| true | false | process deployed and active,
| | | could be disabled/retired via PMAPI
------------------------------------------------------
| false | true | process deployed but retired,
| | | i.e. old instances are kept running but
| | | instantiation of new ones is not possible
------------------------------------------------------
| true | true | see (false, true)
------------------------------------------------------
So IMO the last two state are actually the same and boil down to
"active" (2), "inactive" (1), "retired" (3,4). Or am I mistaken?
So for the trunk I'm in favour of dropping the retired attribute.
IIRC (and maybe I don't) at this stage the process hasn't been compiled yet.
So it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
True. But in case we could solve it, e.g. by preparsing the BPEL file,
we could get rid of the filename attribute in the DD (and can then find
BPEL files by QName). I think its currently a bit strange that you don't
have to put the filename into the DD unless you want to have custom
properties compiled into the process while everything else is assigned
automatically... Nothing critical actually. A JIRA?
Cheers,
Tammo
