Hi guys,
I have finished working my way through the server
framework and determined that this will change the runtime extension business
considerably (for the better).
There are basically two options for achieving what we
want. One is a nice and simple solution, the other one more complex.
*** Simple option - Generic Server Tools
- .bpel file is the module type to be deployed, which
means that the user does not need to be concerned with the various formats of deployment
archives. User can simply deploy a BPEL process.
- Our extension point offers something like a
GenericBPELPublisher that provides common functionality (allow storing local
copy of deployment archive, update problems view, etc.).
- Extensions just need to provide sub-class of
GenericBPELPublisher and a server definition file to allow
for user config via wizard and allow start/stop of server. Sub-class takes care
of generating deployment archive and publishing it. That's really all you want
a runtime provider to have to do.
- Advantages are: Nice and easy integration for
runtime providers, user only worries about deploying a BPEL process. Even
though less flexible than complex option, does not preclude use of facets and moduleTypes.
That is, REP can still define BPEL moduleType and wizard for creating new
instances, etc.
*** Complex option - Server Tools
- This means a lot more work for runtime providers. May
need to implement runtimeTypes, serverTypes, wizardFragments, moduleTypes, etc.
Need to provide several classes in order to initialise, start, stop server, publish
modules, implement wizard pages to get user input, etc. Too much work just to integrate
a runtime.
- Runtime providers may be able to reuse some existing
implementations (Tomcat?), but providing a server def file is still simpler option
in any case.
As I currently don't see how the Generic Server Tools
Framework would fail to cater for our needs, I am in favour of exploring the
simple solution.
In any case, it is better to require less work from
everyone now and then discover that we need more features and have to use the
complex option than spend a lot of effort on the complex option now just to find
out that a day's worth of coding with the generic tools might have done the
job.
Not sure that I will finish this before leaving the office
for a while, but should have something useful at some point in June.
Regards,
-- Bruno
Cc: 'BPEL Designer project
developer discussions.'
Subject: RE: [bpel-dev] Runtime
issues.