Re: What's next for SCA & BPEL Integration - component type update done

[Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>]

Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> Are you guys still making changes to the BPEL code?
> 
> I'd like to be able to work with BPEL components in the domain without 
> having to boot the whole runtime. I'd like to do it sometime later this 
> week but for that to work I'll need to split implementation-bpel in two 
> modules (model and runtime) like we've already done for other 
> implementation types.
> 
> Is now a good time to do that split or is it going to conflict with the 
> changes you've been working on? Any chance you guys can commit your 
> changes to avoid complex merging? or should I make the split on the side 
> in sandbox to give you more time to work on this and then we merge later?
> 
> Thanks

Jean-Sebastien,

OK, the component type introspection updates are done and committed under 654282.

You're free to go do the split.


Yours,  Mike.

Re: What's next for SCA & BPEL Integration - component type update done

[Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>]

Luciano Resende wrote:
> Cool Mike, this is very good improvement for the bpel impl...
> 
> BTW, could you please check if you have committed one of the new model
> classes : BPELPartnerLinkTypeExt
> 
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Mike Edwards
> <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Luciano,

The class BPELPartnerLinkExt is a new part of the interface-wsdl-xml module, which was committed 
under 654287, separately from the changes to the implementation-bpel package.

BPELPartnerLinkExt is a class which handles the <partnerLinkType.../> elements which turn up as 
extensions in WSDL documents, separate from the BPEL process documents.

I wrote a BPELExtensionHandler class to deal with reading & writing these elements as part of WSDL 
documents and I have added this extension handler to the WSDLDocumentProcessor class, which does the 
handling of WSDL files.  I thought it was better to keep this stuff in the WSDL processing code - 
there may be other extensions which we may well need to handle in WSDL files and I suspect it is 
best to keep all the extensions in one place so that it is plain for everyone to see the full extent 
of our WSDL handling.

I hope it all works - it could for sure do with some more testcases, especially error cases like 
missing links between particular partnerLinks and the portTypes which define their interfaces.


Yours,  Mike.

Re: What's next for SCA & BPEL Integration - component type update done

[Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>]

Cool Mike, this is very good improvement for the bpel impl...

BTW, could you please check if you have committed one of the new model
classes : BPELPartnerLinkTypeExt

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Mike Edwards
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>>
>> Are you guys still making changes to the BPEL code?
>>
>> I'd like to be able to work with BPEL components in the domain without
>> having to boot the whole runtime. I'd like to do it sometime later this week
>> but for that to work I'll need to split implementation-bpel in two modules
>> (model and runtime) like we've already done for other implementation types.
>>
>> Is now a good time to do that split or is it going to conflict with the
>> changes you've been working on? Any chance you guys can commit your changes
>> to avoid complex merging? or should I make the split on the side in sandbox
>> to give you more time to work on this and then we merge later?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> Jean-Sebastien,
>
> OK, the component type introspection updates are done and committed under
> 654282.
>
> You're free to go do the split.
>
>
> Yours,  Mike.
>



-- 
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: What's next for SCA & BPEL Integration - component type update done

[Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>]

Mike Edwards wrote:
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>> Are you guys still making changes to the BPEL code?
>>
>> I'd like to be able to work with BPEL components in the domain without 
>> having to boot the whole runtime. I'd like to do it sometime later 
>> this week but for that to work I'll need to split implementation-bpel 
>> in two modules (model and runtime) like we've already done for other 
>> implementation types.
>>
>> Is now a good time to do that split or is it going to conflict with 
>> the changes you've been working on? Any chance you guys can commit 
>> your changes to avoid complex merging? or should I make the split on 
>> the side in sandbox to give you more time to work on this and then we 
>> merge later?
>>
>> Thanks
> 
> Jean-Sebastien,
> 
> OK, the component type introspection updates are done and committed 
> under 654282.
> 
> You're free to go do the split.
> 
> 
> Yours,  Mike.

Great, Thanks! I'll go and do it soon.

-- 
Jean-Sebastien