So if I understand correctly you are saying there should only be one "active" process definition at any given point in time? From the example; when P.v2 is deployed it is implied that P.v1.A becomes inactive and any messages targeted at P.v1.A would fail to route within the engine.
If the above statement holds true with everyone then I think we are in agreement and we need to decide on a naming convention for these process definition states. I have been using the convention "current" and I think Maciej suggested "legacy" for the converse ( I would suggest "deprecated" as an alternative ). I think Alex prefers the terms "active" and "retired"? Thoughts? Lance On 8/9/06, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My expectation as a developer, is that whenever I deploy a new version of the same process, the old version is retired so the new version is activated. And if I intend to deploy two processes side by side, I should pick different names to distinguish them. Anything else would surprise me. Assaf On 8/9/06, Lance Waterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would like to start a new thread on this since I don't believe this > really > has anything to do with issue 10 and I was beginning to get lost in the > thread context. > > I have put more thought into Alex's comments and would like to see if more > use cases could help clear things up. Sticking with Alex's uses cases I > believe he has defined process P with v1 and v2 where v1 has instantiating > operation A and v2 has instantiating operation B. I would like to add v3 > which has instantiating operation A ( identical to v1 ). > > P.v1 is deployed > > P.v2 is deployed. My impression from Alex is that P.v1.A and P.v2.B are > both > "active" ( both are available to the client and both will instantiate a > new > process ). I must use some management tooling to explicitly "retire" P.v1. > Is this correct? > > P.v3 is deployed. This is where I need some help in understanding. Is > P.v1.Astill active or because the signature is the same, > P.v1.A is implicitly retired? > > Lance > > -- CTO, Intalio http://www.intalio.com
