[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [alf-dev] ALF SourceCodeMangementVocabularyMeeting+1-303-928-3232 id 6053141#Wednesday10:00AM PDT - meeting minutes
|
Meeting minutes for ALF Source Code Management Vocabulary Meeting this
week, Wednesday Oct 4th at 10:00AM PDT
Attendees:
Mark Phippard
Brian Carrol
Adam Simatel
Robert Reising
Tim Buss
Agenda
0. Last meeting's minutes (below)
1. Status on tasks (see list in minutes below)
2. Discuss issues raised concerning SCM vocab
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Talk:ALF/SCM_Vocabulary
3. "Callback" idea update
4. Any other business
0. Last weeks Minutes were accepted
1. Status on tasks (see list in minutes below)
Done
T26 Discuss dynamic "Callback" idea
BPEL Correlation was suggested as the way this can be addressed. See
"Callback" item #3 below.
T30. POC use case candidates.
We agreed it would be useful to implement one or more POCs based on the
various SCM schemas/WSDLs. There may be some benefit in trying to do
this before we start any parallel work trying to wrap real products.
T24 seems important to complete before we start codeing in parallel.
Adam Simantel has proposed a POC scenario. See any "other business"
item #4 below
TODO
T19 Wiki pictures. There are some placeholders for pictures in the
Wiki.
T24 Refine and Normalize Operations so they work as a coherent set
Assigned to you.
We agreed to a speial meeting set for 10:00am PDT on Oct 9th to focus on
this issue and T29 "return values and faults"
T25 Reflect Operation refinements in Schema and WSDL Assigned to Tim Tim
is waiting for feedback
T27. ALF SCM vocabulary Eclipse WTP "stub" project.
Mark took at look at this and discovered some minor problems with the
SCM WSDL/Schema that need to be fixed. This task is relatively trivial
soe we are waiting on Task 24,25,29
T28. Define and prototype "callback mechanism"
BPEL Correlation has been suggested as the mechanism. Tim Buss work on
a prototype to illustrate this.
T29. Define return values and faults
(see T24)
2. Discuss issues raised concerning SCM vocab
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Talk:ALF/SCM_Vocabulary
Thus feedback was reviewed. We found the object comments to be mostly
terminology. We will take into account the Use Case feedback as part of
the "Normalization/Refinement discussion"
3. "Callback" idea update
A point was raise that perhaps raising an ALF Event for every
asynchronous action completion may be too heavyweight. An alternative
using a dynamic callback service passed with the operation was
suggested. This would probably take the form of an ALF event in
definition but would connect back to the calling instance of the service
flow directly. The removes the need to create new service flow instance
and simplifies data correlation in some cases.
It is proposed that BPEL correlation should be used to provide this
functionality. The description below is updated from the original
agenda item clarifying some aspects.
In the BPEL flow definition, you identify message elements that will
identify the BPEL process instance uniquely. When the BPEL engine
receives a message for a paticular BPEL flow definition it tries to
match it to the various possible entry points to that BPEL process
definition that expect a message of that type. If the message matches
an entry point that is only active in a running instance of the process
then correlation is used to determine which running instance is
expecting this particular message. Correlation uses one or more message
element values to match the message to the process instance that is
expecting it. These values must be defined, initialized and associated
with the entry point (eg <receive>) by the process and they must be also
present in the received message for the match to occur. If the values
match then the message is passed to that running process.
To make this convenient to use, either the service, the service flow or
both parties will need to provide a ID that is unique to the service
flow instance. The service flow would seem the most likely candidate in
most cases. There are various options that provide some flexibility as
to what can be used to define the correlation set. For us it would
probably make sense to come up with some guidelines that make it easy to
support. (eg: one id that is unique per service flow and is structure in
the same place in the same structure wherever it is used.)
Note that it is still necessary for the Service to "callback" to a
specific service flow endpoint. Since this is dynamic, the endpoint
would have to be passed through the services and either be used by the
tool to invoke the BPEL engine directly or returned in the ALF event to
allow the ALF event manager to invoke the running service flow. This
latter seem prefereable since it would not change the requirement for
tool participation beyond what is already defined for "ALF compliance".
To work through the event manager, the "callback" would just be an event
and the tool would need to pass through some ALF defined values received
from the Service Flow (ie the endpoint and corellation value(s)) and set
them in the event. The "callback" entry point <receive> or equivalent
in the BPEL would be defined to take an event message subject to a
correllation with a particular value in the message. It is unclear if
this indirection is feasible and that would require a prototype.
Another issue is that that while standard, this is fairly "advanced"
BPEL feature and may not be supported by the less mature open source
engines. ActiveBPEL and Oracle both support it.
A point to be discussed is whether this being a BPEL defined mechanism
binds the Servicefloe implmentation to BPEL. While this needs some more
thought. I believe it does not and the mechanism may be generally
applied. A service would just use the same correlation values to match
the message and since the callback endpoint is dynamic an determined by
the service flow there is no assumption of a BPEL engine endpoint.
Further, it seems possible that the tools may still interact only with
the event manager and are still isolated from the Service Flow
implmentation.
4. Any other business
Adam Simatel proposed a POC scenario. This is documented in another
email thread. We discussed the proposal and suggested some refinements.
The updated proposal is here
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/ALF/Vocabularies/SCM_Vocabulary/POCUse
Cases
Tim Buss - Serena.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Buss
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:15 PM
To: 'ALF Developer Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [alf-dev] ALF Source
CodeMangementVocabularyMeeting+1-303-928-3232 id 6053141#
Wednesday10:00AM PDT - meeting minutes
Meeting minutes for ALF Source Code Management Vocabulary Meeting this
week, Wednesday Sept 27th at 10:00AM PDT
Attendees
Adam Simatel
Brian Caroll
Tim Buss
Robert Reising
Agenda
0. Last meetings's minutes (below)
1. Status on tasks (see list in minutes below)
2. Any other business
0. Last meetings's minutes. Last weeks minutes were accepted
1. Tasks
DONE
T23 Define SCM events XML
Assigned to Tim. A draft has been presented and is available in the
wiki
TODO
T19
Wiki pictures. There are some placeholders for pictures in the Wiki.
These need to be populated. In particular it would be good to get the
updated data model into the Wiki
T24 Refine and Normalize Operations so they work as a coherent set
Assigned to you. Please provide feedback Richard Title and Adam
Simantel will take a look at this
T25 Reflect Operation refinements in Schema and WSDL Assigned to Tim Tim
is waiting for feedback
T26 Discuss dynamic "Callback" idea
A point was raise that perhaps raising an ALF Event for every
asynchronous action completion may be too heavyweight. An alternative
using a dynamic callback service passed with the operation was
suggested. This would probably take the form of an ALF event in
definition but would connect back to the calling instance of the service
flow directly. The removes the need to create new service flow instance
and simplifies data correlation in some cases.
It was suggested we need a proposal to discuss (see T28)
T27. ALF SCM vocabulary Eclipse WTP "stub" project Mark is going to take
a look at doing this. We may need to refine the schema and WSDL before
we do that since the current version is not completely valid.
T28. Define and prototype "callback mechanism"
Tim Buss committed to defining this mechanism for discussion
T29. Define return values and faults
T30. POC use case candidates.
We agreed it would be useful to implement one or more POCs based on the
various SCM schemas/WSDLs. There may be some benefit in trying to do
this before we start any parallel work trying to wrap real products.
T24 seems important to complete before we start codeing in parallel.
Adam Simantel will suggest a use case for the POC
3. Any Other Business
Liya Jan has provided some feedback on the SCM vocabulary (see
attached). I have added these comments to the discussion section of the
SCM wikki page.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Talk:ALF/SCM_Vocabulary. Please review
and we will discuss it next week.
Attendance has been light and the summer holiday excuse no longer
applies :)
Tim Buss - Serena.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Buss
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:04 PM
To: 'ALF Developer Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [alf-dev] ALF Source
CodeMangementVocabularyMeeting+1-303-928-3232 id 6053141#
Wednesday10:00AM PDT - meeting minutes
There will be a ALF Source Code Management Vocabulary Meeting this week,
Wednesday Sept 27th at 10:00AM PDT
The call in number is
+1-303-928-3232 id 6053141#
as usual
Agenda
0. Last meetings's minutes (below)
1. Status on tasks (see list in minutes below)
2. Any other business
Tim Buss - Serena.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Buss
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:02 AM
To: 'ALF Developer Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [alf-dev] ALF Source
CodeMangementVocabularyMeeting+1-303-928-3232 id 6053141#
Wednesday10:00AM PDT - meeting minutes
Meeting minutes for ALF Source Code Management Vocabulary Meeting this
week, Wednesday Sept 6th at 10:00AM PDT
Attendees
Adam Simatel
Richard Title
Eric Minnick
Tim Buss
Brian Caroll
Agenda
0. Last meetings's minutes (below)
1. Status on tasks (see list in minutes below)
2. Declaring events (since attendence was low last week)
3. Any other business
0. Last meetings's minutes. Last weeks minutes were accepted
1. Tasks
DONE
T23 Define SCM events XML
Assigned to Tim. A draft has been presented and is available in the
wiki
TODO
T19
Wiki pictures. There are some placeholders for pictures in the Wiki.
These need to be populated. In particular it would be good to get the
updated data model into the Wiki
T24 Refine and Normalize Operations so they work as a coherent set
Assigned to you. Please provide feedback
T25 Reflect Operation refinements in Schema and WSDL Assigned to Tim Tim
is waiting for feedback
T26 Discuss dynamic "Callback" idea
A point was raise that perhaps raising an ALF Event for every
asynchronous action completion may be too heavyweight. An alternative
using a dynamic callback service passed with the operation was
suggested. This would probably take the form of an ALF event in
definition but would connect back to the calling instance of the service
flow directly. The removes the need to create new service flow instance
and simplifies data correlation in some cases.
T27. ALF SCM vocabulary Eclipse WTP "stub" project Mark is going to take
a look at doing this. We may need to refine the schema and WSDL before
we do that since the current version is not completely valid.
T28. Define and prototype "callback mechanism"
T29. Define return values and faults
T30. POC use case candidates.
We agreed it would be useful to implement one or more POCs based on the
various SCM schemas/WSDLs. There may be some benefit in trying to do
this before we start any parallel work trying to wrap real products.
T24 seems important to complete before we start codeing in parallel.
2. Declaring events
The event Schema/WSDL was presented again to a broader audience.
Feedback is awaited.
3. Any Other Business
The importance of getting a more stable draft of the the SCM vocab was
stressed.
There will no meeting next week (13th Sep). A meeting the following
week (20th) is TBD since Tim Buss will be away.
Tim Buss - Serena.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Buss
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 10:08 PM
To: 'ALF Developer Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [alf-dev] ALF Source
CodeMangementVocabularyMeeting+1-303-928-3232 id 6053141#
Wednesday10:00AM PDT - meeting minutes
Agenda
0. Last meetings's minutes (below)
1. Status on tasks (see list in minutes below)
2. Declaring events (schema to follow)
3. Any other business
Attendees
Brian Caroll
Adam Simatel
Tim Buss
0. Last meetings's minutes. The minutes were accepted
1. Status on tasks (see list in minutes below) Done
TODO
T19
Wiki pictures. There are some placeholders for pictures in the Wiki.
These need to be populated. In particular it would be good to get the
updated data model into the Wiki
T23 Define SCM events XML
Assigned to Tim. A draft was presented
T24 Refine and Normalize Operations so they work as a coherent set
Assigned to you. Please provide feedback
T25 Reflect Operation refinements in Schema and WSDL Assigned to Tim Tim
is waiting for feedback
T26 Discuss dynamic "Callback" idea
A point was raise that perhaps raising an ALF Event for every
asynchronous action completion may be too heavyweight. An alternative
using a dynamic callback service passed with the operation was
suggested. This would probably take the form of an ALF event in
definition but would connect back to the calling instance of the service
flow directly. The removes the need to create new service flow instance
and simplifies data correlation in some cases.
T27. ALF SCM vocabulary Eclipse WTP "stub" project Mark is going to take
a look at doing this. We may need to refine the schema and WSDL before
we do that since the current version is not completely valid.
T28. Define and prototype "callback mechanism"
T29. Define return values and faults
2. Event declaration schema
The event declaration schema was discussed. The main issues with it is
that it is more complex than we would like and maybe more challenging to
create than we would like. Two approaches were suggested.
a) Tools could provide some additional non schema based xml to
describe the various valid event field combinations. This has some
appeal since the obvious format for this would be an ALF event map
fragment (without the service flows). This is certainly easier to read
than the schema but has the glaring ommission of describing what
vocabulary of tool specific data comes with the event
b) ALF could, at some future date, provide a tool to generate
the Event declaration schema.
3. Any other business
No other business was discussed
Tim Buss - Serena.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________
alf-dev mailing list
alf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/alf-dev
