Actually I think this element would mean "start" on deployment as well as "start" on engine startup or we can have two elements if more fine grained control is required.
On 8/18/06, Lance Waterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maciej, I would like to get a bit of clarification on this. Does BpelServer.deploy(File) always imply a BpelServer.startDeploymentUnit(File) or should we add an element into the DD that allows "start" on deployment to be specified? Lance On 8/17/06, Maciej Szefler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lance, > > Yes, that makes sense; but there is a caveat. The activate() method > potentially does two things: > 1. Update the state of the process in the DB to be "active". > 2. Instantiate the process in memory. > > Certainly (1) belongs in the PMAPI as you suggest. (2) is more > complicated: it depends on (1) and also on the integration layer > deciding that it wants the process started. For example, in JBI we don't > actually want to instantiate the process in memory until the service > unit life cycle method start() is called. > > What I would propose is: > * create a suspend() / resume() method on the process management API > that would control the process state in the DB. > * remove activate/deactivate methods on the BpelServer. > * add startAll(), startProcess(QName pid), and startDeploymentUnit(File > du) to BpelServer as well as corresponding stop...() methods for use by > the Integration Layer. startProcess(..) would load the given process in > memory (so long as it is not suspended). startDeploymentUnit(..) would > call startProcess(..) for all processes in the deployment unit. > startAll() would call startDeploymentUnit(..) for all known deployment > units. > > -maciej > > > > On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 22:17 -0600, Lance Waterman wrote: > > So if I understand correctly this is a start/stop for the process > > definition and are process definition lifecycle operations. > > > > What do you think about moving these operations to the > > ProcessManagement interface and renaming to "suspend"/"resume" ( > > following the precedence on the InstanceManagement interface)? > > > > Lance > >
