I don't see it that way. If I wanted to deploy Foo side by side with Bar, I would create a process Foo and a process Bar, with distinct names that may differ only in version number.
If I'm deploying Foo for the third time (v3), it's because I'm replacing Foo(v2), itself replacing Foo(v1). And the element of least surprise is that new version is activated, while old version is retired. Consistently. Otherwise, I accidentally change the endpoints in Foo(v3), and all my test cases keep working even though they should be failing, because Foo(v3) is wrong, but Foo(v2) is still active. Assaf On 8/9/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
-- CTO, Intalio http://www.intalio.com
