Sorry Lance, I still disagree.
I think the engine should allow simultaneous deployment and activation of:
P(v1) with operation "foo" on endpoint "bar"
P(v2) with operation "foo" on endpoint "baz".
or
P(v1) with operation "foo" on endpoint "bar"
P(v2) with operation "foz" on endpoint "bar".
These are just two examples but they illustrate what I consider a valid
use-cases.
alex
Lance Waterman wrote:
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
