Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[Fwd: Re: [bpel-dev] Minutes of call regarding BPEL validation] 
This bounced on fri due to eclipse.org meltdown

--
Michal Chmielewski, CMST, Oracle Corp, W:650-506-5952 / M:408-209-9321 "Manuals ?! What manuals ? Son, it's Unix, you just gotta know."
--- Begin Message ---
Bruno Wassermann wrote:

Hi guys,

 

Just a few thoughts on targeting a particular runtime at process modeling time.

 

Is it okay to expect a user to specify the target runtime at process modeling time (i.e. before thinking about deployment) or would this introduce some usability issue?

That's an interesting point you make.

I think it is quite reasonable for the user to do that, as I presume, most users will be, for a lack of a better word monogamous :-)

A runtime provider, would provide the runtime extensions and most likely some element extensions to be authored into the process. One could further assume that such extension might be unlike the extensions of any other runtime, simply because they are either verticals or because the likelihood of 2 people coming up with the same design are pretty close to 0.

Would it make sense to associate a 1-N runtime descriptor id with every activity on the palette for example ? If a targeted runtime is picked, the process can be analyzed quickly to show which activities will not even "run" on that runtime and be reported as potential problems. And as Bruno points out, the palette items can be hidden if a process is "married" to the runtime.

This one seems particularly intriguing a point simply because we need to run-time agnostic and help the user as much as we can once he does pick or deploy to a runtime.

There are some hidden snakes here. Runtimes may have pluggable activity models that allow a vertical set of activities to plug in into different runtimes. But I think it would be prudent to at least think about it.

Should a user be free to choose the vocabulary/constructs that best suits her modeling needs and then think about which runtime to employ or is this unrealistic (i.e. should we expect a user to only have one particular runtime available and should therefore provide support, during modeling, for valid processes for this particular runtime).

However, if we don’t ask for a target runtime, we wouldn’t know which tools to offer in palette and which ones to hide. Then again, we mentioned in the runtime extension thread that there will be runtime-specific validation and feedback to the user at deployment time.

 

It would be really cool to have some technology where we offer ‘write once, run anywhere’ without users having to reason about portability issues.

 

Regards,

 

-- Bruno

-- 
Michal Chmielewski, CMST, Oracle Corp, 
W:650-506-5952 / M:408-209-9321 

"Manuals ?! What manuals ? Son, it's Unix, you just gotta know."

--- End Message ---

Back to the top