On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:53 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Now that we are making more progress with the SCA & BPEL integration > > and have figured out how to make References to work, let's discuss > > what could be the next steps on this area. Below are couple examples > > of what we could do next > > > > - WS-BPEL Process Introspection : Currently we are requiring SCA > > componentType files, we could introspect the BPEL process file to > > generate the component type information from it. > > > > - Integrate BEPL with the store scenario tutorial : We could add a > > OrderProcessing step to the store checkout, and illustrate a more real > > integration scenario. > > > > Other then these, we could review the > > SCA_ClientAndImplementationModelFor BPEL and identify other areas that > > we might need enhancements. Scenarios / Samples / Demos are always > > welcome too. Or if you have other suggestions, feel free to jump to > > the discussion. > > > > BTW: Copying the ODE list in case they want to jump and help, or in > > case they have other ideas. > > > > > Not a very exciting one but is there any clean up of the dependencies > possible? Currently using the implementation.bpel extension brings in 78 > addition dependency jars at about 20meg, i wondered if some of those could > get excluded? > > ...ant >
Part of this is because we have a Embedded ODE BPEL engine, and that itself brings several dependencies. But this is certainly something to investigate. It would be also good if ODE could be more flexible/dynamic with some dependencies (e.g Saxon) and only really require these dependencies if they are going to be in use, this would help our side as well. -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
