I think if P(v1) and P(v2) have different operation+endpoint then P(v2) should be a new process definition ( name/namespace ) and not a new version. It seems like P(v2) is trying to define a new interface for P(v1). What happens if P(v1) and P(v2) do have the same operations and both are active? I think in the typical use case we are trying to solve ( i.e. the client app is not required to change )..
Lance On 8/8/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
