On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Mike Edwards > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Folks, >> >> First I'd like to give a big +1 to upgrading the BPEL support in the current >> codebase. >> > > I have started this in 1.x > >> However, why wait for the ODE 2.0 release? Is it likely that they will >> formally release their 2.0 within the next 2 months? If not, then we should >> not wait and both 1.x and 2.x of Tuscany should move up to 1.3.2 right away. >> > > For the ODE 2.x, they have already released a beta version. If we > start with that, we could probably be a step further to support ODE > 2.x in Tuscany 2.x codebase. Well, that was my thoughts... >
Unless there are compelling features we need it would be good if we can keep the 1.x and 2.x BPEL extension using the same Ode release so that the Tuscany code is as close to the same as possible in 1.x and 2.x so its easy to port fixes back and forth. >> I'll be happy to be involved with the 2.x migration - I need a working BPEL >> implementation for the OASIS BPEL testcases... >> Me too, it would be good to try to start on the 2.x bpel extension OASIS compliance while the spec is out for public review - thats why i've already started getting it going in 2.x ;) ...ant
