[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
[Fwd: Re: [bpel-dev] Minutes of call regarding BPEL validation]
|
This bounced on fri due to eclipse.org meltdown
--
Michal Chmielewski, CMST, Oracle Corp,
W:650-506-5952 / M:408-209-9321
"Manuals ?! What manuals ? Son, it's Unix, you just gotta know."
--- Begin Message ---
Bruno Wassermann wrote:
Hi guys,
Just a few
thoughts on targeting a
particular runtime at process modeling time.
Is it okay
to expect a user to specify the
target runtime at process modeling time (i.e. before thinking about
deployment)
or would this introduce some usability issue?
That's an interesting point you make.
I think it is quite reasonable for the user to do that, as I presume,
most users will be, for a lack of a better word monogamous :-)
A runtime provider, would provide the runtime extensions and most
likely some element extensions to be authored into the process. One
could further assume that such extension might be unlike the extensions
of any other runtime, simply because they are either verticals or
because the likelihood of 2 people coming up with the same design are
pretty close to 0.
Would it make sense to associate a 1-N runtime descriptor id with every
activity on the palette for example ? If a targeted runtime is picked,
the process can be analyzed quickly to show which activities will not
even "run" on that runtime and be reported as potential problems. And
as Bruno points out, the palette items can be hidden if a process is
"married" to the runtime.
This one seems particularly intriguing a point simply because we need
to run-time agnostic and help the user as much as we can once he does
pick or deploy to a runtime.
There are some hidden snakes here. Runtimes may have pluggable activity
models that allow a vertical set of activities to plug in into
different runtimes. But I think it would be prudent to at least think
about it.
Should a
user be free to choose the
vocabulary/constructs that best suits her modeling needs and then think
about which
runtime to employ or is this unrealistic (i.e. should we expect a user
to only have
one particular runtime available and should therefore provide support,
during modeling,
for valid processes for this particular runtime).
However, if
we don’t ask for a
target runtime, we wouldn’t know which tools to offer in palette and
which ones to hide. Then again, we mentioned in the runtime extension
thread
that there will be runtime-specific validation and feedback to the user
at
deployment time.
It would be
really cool to have some
technology where we offer ‘write once, run anywhere’ without users
having to reason about portability issues.
Regards,
-- Bruno
--
Michal Chmielewski, CMST, Oracle Corp,
W:650-506-5952 / M:408-209-9321
"Manuals ?! What manuals ? Son, it's Unix, you just gotta know."
|
--- End Message ---