Proposed API change -- DAO

[Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com>]

While walking through the bpel-api module I have become convinced that
the DAO interfaces do not really belong there: the sole dependency on
these interfaces is in the BpelServer.setDAOConnectionFactory method and
really the DAO represents an implementation detail of the server rather
than a genuine concern of the integration layer using the IAPI. Hence,
I'd like to propose that we move the DAO interfaces to a separate module
and eliminate the setDAOConnectionFactory method from the public
BpelServer interface. 

-maciej


> 
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:32 -0400, Maciej Szefler wrote:
> Lance,
> 
> We previously discussed the fact that the deployment methods on the
> BpelServer interface were not stable / final. These changes were driven
> by the fact that we had earlier introduced a new deployment descriptor /
> packaging format that was more in-line with the DeploymentAPI document
> and as a practical matter needed to eliminate the old PXE deployment
> descriptor format to prevent confusion and maintain compatibility with
> the JBI IL. I think on the deployment end we still have some ways to go
> before we can consider the API to be stable, but on the whole I feel
> that the changes I made were only getting us closer to the intent of the
> group WRT deployment.
> 
> -Maciej
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:47 -0600, Lance Waterman wrote:
> > With this refactor I now see a public interface "DeploymentUnit" ( add
> > into the trunk on 8/2 ) is no longer referenced by either of the IL
> > implementations and so I question its use as a public interface. Also,
> > BpelServer.deploy () has changed as well.
> > 
> > I feel like the public API is thrashing  and I would like to formally
> > ask that changes to the API be proposed on the mailing list. I think
> > review is necessary on the public API.
> > 
> > Thoughts - other suggests? 
> > 
> 

Re: Proposed API change -- DAO

[Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>]

Looks like an agreement. I'll create a Jira issue for this.

On 8/15/06, Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 but maybe with a nice default value?
>
> I'm not a great fan of long configuration properties when in the 80% case
> they can be much shorter (or even inexistant).
>
>
> On 8/15/06, Lance Waterman <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, and it would be nice if the factory could be expressed as an
> > engine
> > configuration property.
> >
> > On 8/15/06, Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > While walking through the bpel-api module I have become convinced that
> >
> > > the DAO interfaces do not really belong there: the sole dependency on
> > > these interfaces is in the BpelServer.setDAOConnectionFactory method
> > and
> > > really the DAO represents an implementation detail of the server
> > rather
> > > than a genuine concern of the integration layer using the IAPI. Hence,
> > > I'd like to propose that we move the DAO interfaces to a separate
> > module
> > > and eliminate the setDAOConnectionFactory method from the public
> > > BpelServer interface.
> > >
> > > -maciej
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:32 -0400, Maciej Szefler wrote:
> > > > Lance,
> > > >
> > > > We previously discussed the fact that the deployment methods on the
> > > > BpelServer interface were not stable / final. These changes were
> > driven
> > > > by the fact that we had earlier introduced a new deployment
> > descriptor /
> > > > packaging format that was more in-line with the DeploymentAPI
> > document
> > > > and as a practical matter needed to eliminate the old PXE deployment
> > > > descriptor format to prevent confusion and maintain compatibility
> > with
> > > > the JBI IL. I think on the deployment end we still have some ways to
> > go
> > > > before we can consider the API to be stable, but on the whole I feel
> > > > that the changes I made were only getting us closer to the intent of
> > the
> > > > group WRT deployment.
> > > >
> > > > -Maciej
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:47 -0600, Lance Waterman wrote:
> > > > > With this refactor I now see a public interface "DeploymentUnit" (
> > add
> > > > > into the trunk on 8/2 ) is no longer referenced by either of the
> > IL
> > > > > implementations and so I question its use as a public interface.
> > Also,
> > > > > BpelServer.deploy () has changed as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel like the public API is thrashing  and I would like to
> > formally
> > > > > ask that changes to the API be proposed on the mailing list. I
> > think
> > > > > review is necessary on the public API.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts - other suggests?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: Proposed API change -- DAO

[Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>]

+1 but maybe with a nice default value?

I'm not a great fan of long configuration properties when in the 80% case
they can be much shorter (or even inexistant).

On 8/15/06, Lance Waterman <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Agreed, and it would be nice if the factory could be expressed as an
> engine
> configuration property.
>
> On 8/15/06, Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com> wrote:
> >
> > While walking through the bpel-api module I have become convinced that
> > the DAO interfaces do not really belong there: the sole dependency on
> > these interfaces is in the BpelServer.setDAOConnectionFactory method and
> > really the DAO represents an implementation detail of the server rather
> > than a genuine concern of the integration layer using the IAPI. Hence,
> > I'd like to propose that we move the DAO interfaces to a separate module
> > and eliminate the setDAOConnectionFactory method from the public
> > BpelServer interface.
> >
> > -maciej
> >
> >
> > >
> > On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:32 -0400, Maciej Szefler wrote:
> > > Lance,
> > >
> > > We previously discussed the fact that the deployment methods on the
> > > BpelServer interface were not stable / final. These changes were
> driven
> > > by the fact that we had earlier introduced a new deployment descriptor
> /
> > > packaging format that was more in-line with the DeploymentAPI document
> > > and as a practical matter needed to eliminate the old PXE deployment
> > > descriptor format to prevent confusion and maintain compatibility with
> > > the JBI IL. I think on the deployment end we still have some ways to
> go
> > > before we can consider the API to be stable, but on the whole I feel
> > > that the changes I made were only getting us closer to the intent of
> the
> > > group WRT deployment.
> > >
> > > -Maciej
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:47 -0600, Lance Waterman wrote:
> > > > With this refactor I now see a public interface "DeploymentUnit" (
> add
> > > > into the trunk on 8/2 ) is no longer referenced by either of the IL
> > > > implementations and so I question its use as a public interface.
> Also,
> > > > BpelServer.deploy () has changed as well.
> > > >
> > > > I feel like the public API is thrashing  and I would like to
> formally
> > > > ask that changes to the API be proposed on the mailing list. I think
> > > > review is necessary on the public API.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts - other suggests?
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Proposed API change -- DAO

[Lance Waterman <la...@gmail.com>]

Agreed, and it would be nice if the factory could be expressed as an engine
configuration property.

On 8/15/06, Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> While walking through the bpel-api module I have become convinced that
> the DAO interfaces do not really belong there: the sole dependency on
> these interfaces is in the BpelServer.setDAOConnectionFactory method and
> really the DAO represents an implementation detail of the server rather
> than a genuine concern of the integration layer using the IAPI. Hence,
> I'd like to propose that we move the DAO interfaces to a separate module
> and eliminate the setDAOConnectionFactory method from the public
> BpelServer interface.
>
> -maciej
>
>
> >
> On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:32 -0400, Maciej Szefler wrote:
> > Lance,
> >
> > We previously discussed the fact that the deployment methods on the
> > BpelServer interface were not stable / final. These changes were driven
> > by the fact that we had earlier introduced a new deployment descriptor /
> > packaging format that was more in-line with the DeploymentAPI document
> > and as a practical matter needed to eliminate the old PXE deployment
> > descriptor format to prevent confusion and maintain compatibility with
> > the JBI IL. I think on the deployment end we still have some ways to go
> > before we can consider the API to be stable, but on the whole I feel
> > that the changes I made were only getting us closer to the intent of the
> > group WRT deployment.
> >
> > -Maciej
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:47 -0600, Lance Waterman wrote:
> > > With this refactor I now see a public interface "DeploymentUnit" ( add
> > > into the trunk on 8/2 ) is no longer referenced by either of the IL
> > > implementations and so I question its use as a public interface. Also,
> > > BpelServer.deploy () has changed as well.
> > >
> > > I feel like the public API is thrashing  and I would like to formally
> > > ask that changes to the API be proposed on the mailing list. I think
> > > review is necessary on the public API.
> > >
> > > Thoughts - other suggests?
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: Proposed API change -- DAO

[Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>]

+1

Assaf

On 8/15/06, Maciej Szefler <mb...@intalio.com> wrote:
>
> While walking through the bpel-api module I have become convinced that
> the DAO interfaces do not really belong there: the sole dependency on
> these interfaces is in the BpelServer.setDAOConnectionFactory method and
> really the DAO represents an implementation detail of the server rather
> than a genuine concern of the integration layer using the IAPI. Hence,
> I'd like to propose that we move the DAO interfaces to a separate module
> and eliminate the setDAOConnectionFactory method from the public
> BpelServer interface.
>
> -maciej
>
>
> >
> On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:32 -0400, Maciej Szefler wrote:
> > Lance,
> >
> > We previously discussed the fact that the deployment methods on the
> > BpelServer interface were not stable / final. These changes were driven
> > by the fact that we had earlier introduced a new deployment descriptor /
> > packaging format that was more in-line with the DeploymentAPI document
> > and as a practical matter needed to eliminate the old PXE deployment
> > descriptor format to prevent confusion and maintain compatibility with
> > the JBI IL. I think on the deployment end we still have some ways to go
> > before we can consider the API to be stable, but on the whole I feel
> > that the changes I made were only getting us closer to the intent of the
> > group WRT deployment.
> >
> > -Maciej
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:47 -0600, Lance Waterman wrote:
> > > With this refactor I now see a public interface "DeploymentUnit" ( add
> > > into the trunk on 8/2 ) is no longer referenced by either of the IL
> > > implementations and so I question its use as a public interface. Also,
> > > BpelServer.deploy () has changed as well.
> > >
> > > I feel like the public API is thrashing  and I would like to formally
> > > ask that changes to the API be proposed on the mailing list. I think
> > > review is necessary on the public API.
> > >
> > > Thoughts - other suggests?
> > >
> >
>
>


-- 
CTO, Intalio
http://www.intalio.com