Thanks for the info, makes sense.  Will simply make undeployment an option
before redploying.  - Rich

On 8/21/07, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/21/07, Rich Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 1. After restarting the Ode server, I see that foo-1(bar-1) is again
> > started
> > up.  I understand this is for any long running instances of this
> process.
> > But I was thinking that the old versions of the process would not live
> > through server restarts and apparently live forever, even with no
> > instances
> > are alive/created.
>
>
> Correct.  We currenlty don't throw away retired process definitions if
> there
> are no instances.
>
> 2. That said, for undeployment, do you explicitly need to undeploy each
> > version of a process if it was deployed multiple times?
>
>
> At the moment, yes.
>
>
> > 3. Going further on the same subject, would there be some way to
> configure
> > Ode to delete previous versions upon redployment if there were no long
> > running instances being run?   Or is there a better way to manage
> previous
> > versions of a bundle/process?
>
>
> Yes, we could set it up to undeploy previous versions automatically (and
> optionally destroy previous instances as well) for development/testing
> scenarios.  I would see this as configuration options.   (See below for an
> alternative)
>
> We're looking at a scenario where someone is working in the Eclipse BPEL
> > designer for example, and deploying every 2 minutes when they make
> tweaks
> > to
> > their bpel process (during development).  After a while, there are
> > _numerous_ versions of the same process deployed that will be around
> > forever
> > if I understand correctly.  I'm looking at how best to manage that.
>
>
> Another option is to teach the Eclipse BPEL Designer how to undeploy
> processes ;)   I personally I think that it makes more sense to do it in
> the
> IDE because an Ode server might be shared between different people who
> desire different behavior.   So I see it more of a personal preference.
>
> alex
>

Reply via email to