I agree with the intent but it has non trivial implications. In the current code base only the ILs now what a service really is, endpoints are completely opaque to the server, which is good. And sometimes even the IL doesn't know everything about an endpoint, only whatever we're hooked to knows (think Axis2 or the JBI bus).
I guess we could have some sort of "best effort" tool that tries to guess which IL you want to use, tries to understand the format of your endpoints and all that stuff. But if we write it with only SOAP/HTTP in mind and somebody configures Axis2 to use JMS, the tool will fail even if your endpoint is fine. On 6/14/07, Paul Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Currently when you deploy a process, very little gets loaded to save memory > (some people deploy a lot of processes without using them all). This kind of > goes with the dehydration but it's just that the default for now is to never > fully load a process as long as it's not used. > However this has some side effects. Mostly you can never be sure after > deployment that your process is fully okay, including the services that it > should invoke. Because the messaging layer loads the WSDL only at first > invocation, you might get a nasty error there saying that the services > declared in your deploy.xml don't exist at all in your WSDL. Which is > usually true but it's the kind of things you'd rather find out at deployment > time. Hmmm. Hmmmm. Well, this seems like functionality that should be part of the bpelc step in the toolchain and not part of deployment. It's a usability nightmare to have to debug your process and accompanying metadata at deployment time only, and in a production/secure environment, getting access to logs may be inconvenient or impossible. (This was part of the motivation for bpelc as a commandline tool in the first place...) How about a "deploycheck" commandline tool or other such that provides this functionality, either as an alternative to the less lazy loading or as an adjunct? (Seems like we could just use the same code, more or less.) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mult.ifario.us/
