> > I am assuming that you have already considered allowing Java to be used
for
> > the purpose, too.
> This isn't a bad idea, but it brings up a lot of potential questions
> 1) Do we allow people to manipulate threads, transactions, sockets,
> etc. in that method? What about blocking or timing issues?
IMO, no. The environment should be restricted, which is why I had proposed
the use of a static method on the class. We could have rules and/or class
loader enforced limits on what can be used. It is certainly not unheard of
for container managed code to be significantly restricted in what it is
permitted to do.
The static method could be generated from embedded code, similar to the
BPELJ approach:
var x = java: { ... insert [language] statements ... }
That allows us to see the code in situ, and we could generate our own
support class and methods from those blocks. I leave open the option of
using other languages for those blocks.
The only logic in the code should be for purpose of doing its
manipulation/analysis of the message content; all other logic should be in
the BPEL. And I don't want it so rich that people are using it instead of a
business process. If we want that, define a local SCA/JBI component, and
invoke it from the BPEL process. I'm not looking for a lovely development
environment with inheritance, etc. I don't want to promote the idea of
people usingt the snippets for too much.
> 2) To what extent is the class tied/versioned with the process?
See above.
Note: unlikely that I'll reply to messages before Sunday evening.
--- Noel
