+1 but maybe with a nice default value? I'm not a great fan of long configuration properties when in the 80% case they can be much shorter (or even inexistant).
On 8/15/06, Lance Waterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agreed, and it would be nice if the factory could be expressed as an engine configuration property. On 8/15/06, Maciej Szefler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While walking through the bpel-api module I have become convinced that > the DAO interfaces do not really belong there: the sole dependency on > these interfaces is in the BpelServer.setDAOConnectionFactory method and > really the DAO represents an implementation detail of the server rather > than a genuine concern of the integration layer using the IAPI. Hence, > I'd like to propose that we move the DAO interfaces to a separate module > and eliminate the setDAOConnectionFactory method from the public > BpelServer interface. > > -maciej > > > > > On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:32 -0400, Maciej Szefler wrote: > > Lance, > > > > We previously discussed the fact that the deployment methods on the > > BpelServer interface were not stable / final. These changes were driven > > by the fact that we had earlier introduced a new deployment descriptor / > > packaging format that was more in-line with the DeploymentAPI document > > and as a practical matter needed to eliminate the old PXE deployment > > descriptor format to prevent confusion and maintain compatibility with > > the JBI IL. I think on the deployment end we still have some ways to go > > before we can consider the API to be stable, but on the whole I feel > > that the changes I made were only getting us closer to the intent of the > > group WRT deployment. > > > > -Maciej > > > > > > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 23:47 -0600, Lance Waterman wrote: > > > With this refactor I now see a public interface "DeploymentUnit" ( add > > > into the trunk on 8/2 ) is no longer referenced by either of the IL > > > implementations and so I question its use as a public interface. Also, > > > BpelServer.deploy () has changed as well. > > > > > > I feel like the public API is thrashing and I would like to formally > > > ask that changes to the API be proposed on the mailing list. I think > > > review is necessary on the public API. > > > > > > Thoughts - other suggests? > > > > > > >
