Recently, I thought about implementing BPEL-SPE in ODE. Here are my thoughts: - BPEL-SPE is not so cool solution, because it's based on receive/reply activities for communication. In my opinion it would be better to pass variables between parent and sub process scopes. - It's quite hard to implement support for multiple processes references from a single instance because of mixing up bpel-obj identifiers from multiple CBP files in the instance's state. So for now I think the best solution is to add subprocesses statement to BPEL Process and a possibility to include external file with other sub processes definition (this won't be a bpel file, but subbpel or something similar). That way we'll have recompilation of sub processes in each process that includes it. This is bad, but for now a feasible solution.
Do you agree with this approach? 2009/8/17 Tammo van Lessen <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > kodeninja wrote: >> Also, when you say breaking a BPEL process into sub-processes, does >> it mean just creating multiple BPEL files, each containing a specific >> portion of the original BPEL, and invoking them via "invoke"? > > Exactly. You may run into problems when autonomy of subprocesses is an > issue, e.g. what happens to a sub-process when the parent process has > been terminated due to some reason? > This has been addressed in BPEL-SPE [1], a joint white paper by IBM and > SAP but has, however, not been implemented in ODE, so you'd have to > stick to "normal" invocations currently. This is just to make you aware > of such issues. > > best, > Tammo > > [1]http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/specification/ws-bpelsubproc/ > > -- > Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de > Regards, -- Rafał Rusin http://www.touk.pl http://top.touk.pl http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~rrusin
