Hi
Koen,
Thank you for your
feedback.
You are right about
it not being optimal for users to click through a number of pages.
As for the settings,
there are global settings, valid across all projects, project-wide settings (I
think this is not made clear in the document) and ones that would need to be
changed for each and every deployment. It's like with JDT where you can, in
your project, override the global settings, just for that project. If I am not
completely mistaken (I never had to implement this), you can store this
information along with your project's preferences. This is separate from the
presentation as multi-page wizard or tab.
I like the deployment
tab (not only because we could reuse your code for that ;-), just one
question. As we will not just offer one engine to deploy to and should
probably not tie the user into a single engine before she models her process
and figures out what she needs for that, how would that work in the deployment
tab (do you have one tab per engine, can you implement some dynamic UI
according to some selection (then it's again two steps for the user))?
Regards,
--
Bruno
This is a very useful
document. I nevertheless have some thoughts about the deployment
process. While developing the deployment functionality in our jBPM plug-in, we
have moved away from the 'wizard approach' in favour of an additional tab in
the editor with deployment information. There is a picture of it in
attachment. The longer term goal (that is not yet realized) is to store this
information somewhere along with the process information. The reasoning behind
it is that users don't like it that they have to click their
way through a multipage wizard if they have to do it a lot of times. Of
course you can move away a lot of this pain by choosing reasonable preferences
and reasonable defaults in the pages. Nonetheless, if users are choosing
values different from the defaults they would have to reenter them upon
each redeployment anyway.
The additional tab in
the editor could as well be a 'deployment view' in which you could provide
multiple tabs that are more or less analogous to the pages of the
described deployment wizard. Well maybe this is all a matter of taste and
as the saying goes, you can't argue about colours and tastes of course...
Regards,
Koen
From:
bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruno
Wassermann
Sent: vrijdag 5
mei 2006 17:59
To: 'BPEL
Designer project developer discussions.'
Subject: RE: [bpel-dev] Runtime
issues.
Hi,
Attached is a
document describing initial thoughts on how the runtime extension point
(REP) in BPEL Designer is going to work. The mechanism described is basic
and there are numerous points to "re-think" in the use cases.
I am in favour of a
basic solution, for the time being, as it will provide us with a mechanism
for deploying BPEL processes onto engines sooner rather than later (can
start to realize these use cases now).
Having said that,
now would be a good time to gather ideas on how to improve the deployment
feature in the editor whilst catering for the needs various runtimes may
have. This will allow us to gradually improve the proposed solution until we
reach the 1.0 milestone release.
As James has
mentioned, the WTP server framework may provide the solution we need for
deployment and if not that at least some inspiration. Philip has kindly
offered to share his experiences with WST as he continues to work on JBI
tooling in Eclipse.
--
Bruno
P.S.:
At the moment, I
know very little about the WST server framework.
If someone could
share the wisdom and help figure out how to make use of it for our
deployment purposes, that would be greatly appreciated.
--
Bruno
I have been wondering whether you could
use the org.eclipse.wst.server.core.moduleTypes extension point of WST to
add a jst.bpel module type, this would allow different servers to add
the ability to 'recieve' deployed BPEL projects.
I've just starting
digging around in here to add JBI as a module type to allow a WST registered
server to work with a JBI faceted project.
Right now I'm starting to
come up to speed for the JBI stuff though there might be a good opportunity
to discuss whether similar principles could be applied to a BPEL
project? Also a good opportunity to share resources on working to
build out new module types (BPEL,JBI etc).
philip
On 5/3/06, James Moody <
James_Moody@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
We haven't yet created such a
facet or nature, but it sounds like we might need one.
And I think, regardless of
runtime restrictions (which may differ from runtime to runtime) that we
*have* to allow the user to create more than one process per project. So I
have a couple of suggestions:
1. We should look
at the server infrastructure provided by the WTP project. This provides an
extensible mechanism for registering "servers" of various types, a view for
managing them (starting, stopping, etc) and also for deploying projects on
them (note that Project is the unit of granularity). This is a perfect match
for what we're doing here.
2. Under the covers, in the case
where the user asks to deploy a project to a sever that only supports, say,
a zip with a single process and some wsdls/xsds, we can of course do
whatever we want - i.e. create one zip for each process in the workspace, as
appropriate. This logic is up to the glue for that particular
runtime.
james
bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote on 05/01/2006 05:18:43
PM:
> Is there a plan to make a BPEL facet or nature so
that a project
> type can be
created and deployed? I was wondering if that might be
> a way of integrated
deployment to a server? Similar maybe to the
> EJB deployment infrastructure?
>
> P
> On 5/1/06,
Michal Chmielewski <michal.chmielewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Since we don't
have right now a BPEL project per se (as for example
a
> J2EE project, a Web Dynamic Project, etc), the BPEL
process and it's
> locally
dependent resources (schemas, wsdls) sit presumably in some
type
> of a project or
directory.
>
> So currently it is ok to
put several BPEL processes in the same project.
>
>
What are we deploying and validating and compiling then? A
single
> project against a
runtime (with many BPEL processes in it) or just the
> "selected" BPEL process in
the project or both. The grouping of BPEL
> processes into projects is totally arbitrary and we
don't have such
> groupings
in the runtime.
>
> Anyhow, thought it should
be said.
>
>
--
> Michal Chmielewski,
CMST, Oracle Corp,
>
W:650-506-5952 / M:408-209-9321
>
>
"Manuals ?! What manuals ? Son, it's Unix, you just gotta
know."
>
>
_______________________________________________
> bpel-dev mailing list
>
bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
bpel-dev
mailing list
bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev