Maciej Szefler wrote:
I think that clarifies it, and also suggests that our terminology is not
the best. The things that is confusing is that the retired processes are
not "inactive". Lance's 'current' is better in this respect, but has no
good opposite (perhaps "legacy").
Retired only means that you cannot create new instances -- existing
instances remain active and are allowed to complete normally. This
terminology is already used in other widely available process engines
and that's why I've been using it.
Again, I don't understand why we need the concept of "current" since you
only need to define which process is logically hooked to a given
operation+endpoint for routing purposes.
Or said another way, I don't understand why you could not have P (v1)
and P (v2) both activated at the same time if they do not share the same
operation+endpoints.
alex
