| Re: [bpel-dev] Runtime issues. |
Hi Alejandro,
Large-scale deployment (deployment of many smaller processes or deployment of a few very resource-intensive workflows) probably necessitates further support for reasoning about memory, thread usage, potential for deadlocks… otherwise you are restricted to a back-of-the-envelope and/or frustrating and time-consuming trial and error approaches.
We have done some work with some colleagues recently that provides for model-based analysis and automated validation, which might be an interesting feature to provide our users with. I will find out whether they think it might be worth thinking about contributing this to BPEL Designer.
-- Bruno
From: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alejandro Guizar
Sent: 06 May 2006 22:29
To: BPEL Designer project developer discussions.
Subject: RE: [bpel-dev] Runtime issues.
I was thinking about a statement James made in an earlier post to this thread:
I've seen real-world scenarios where people have upwards of one hundred business processes deployed on their server. Forcing them to have a project for each one is a serious scalability problem in that case.
Earlier this year one customer was trying to deploy a network of ~120 processes. Only a few external services were involved; most partner relationships had a process at both ends. Many WSDL definitions were shared among two or more processes. At design time, it makes sense to group them in a single project. However, at deployment time you might still want/require to manipulate the individual processes separately.
One such requirement is scalability. In the customer's case, you simply couldn't deploy all processes to the same server. They'd quickly run out of working space and performance degraded substantially. A second server was required to handle the load. In this scenario, I can think of two options.
- Sort your processes in two different projects and set a deployment configuration at each project.
- Keep your processes in a single project and set a deployment configuration at each process.
Option (1) is easier to manage than (2). However, (2) is more flexible: imagine a third server becomes available. (1) forces you to create a third project and move processes there. With (2) you just set a different configuration.
I can see value in either and think we should eventually support both. In order for (2) to be useful we need some sort of catalog where you define a number of deployment configurations. Later on, those configurations can be referenced at the process, project and workspace level.
-Alejandro
From: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Dodds
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 9:53 AM
To: B.Wassermann; BPEL Designer project developer discussions.
Subject: Re: [bpel-dev] Runtime issues.
If there is going to be a number of BPEL process definitions in a project then holding this information at the project properties level might be the way to go. Also collecting the information that the runtime needs could be handed off to a class that can implement the form, from the use-case it looks that storing information pertaining to the 'runtime' that the user has selected to deploy to is the responsiblity of the runtime extension. Therefore it would make sense that rendering the form for managing this runtime is probably also its responsiblity.
>From the use-case the deployment of individual processes is allowed through a right click? I can understand the need in a project for multiple BPEL's however I'm not sure about the deployment of each one independently, this might lead down the route of different runtimes for different processes within a project? I'm not saying we should implement this just wanted to get some perspective from people implementing large scale BPEL deployments.
POn 5/6/06, Bruno Wassermann <B.Wassermann@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Koen,
Thank you for your feedback.
You are right about it not being optimal for users to click through a number of pages.
As for the settings, there are global settings, valid across all projects, project-wide settings (I think this is not made clear in the document) and ones that would need to be changed for each and every deployment. It's like with JDT where you can, in your project, override the global settings, just for that project. If I am not completely mistaken (I never had to implement this), you can store this information along with your project's preferences. This is separate from the presentation as multi-page wizard or tab.
I like the deployment tab (not only because we could reuse your code for that ;-), just one question. As we will not just offer one engine to deploy to and should probably not tie the user into a single engine before she models her process and figures out what she needs for that, how would that work in the deployment tab (do you have one tab per engine, can you implement some dynamic UI according to some selection (then it's again two steps for the user))?
Regards,
-- Bruno
From: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Koen Aers
Sent: 06 May 2006 09:20
To: BPEL Designer project developer discussions.
Subject: RE: [bpel-dev] Runtime issues.
This is a very useful document. I nevertheless have some thoughts about the deployment process. While developing the deployment functionality in our jBPM plug-in, we have moved away from the 'wizard approach' in favour of an additional tab in the editor with deployment information. There is a picture of it in attachment. The longer term goal (that is not yet realized) is to store this information somewhere along with the process information. The reasoning behind it is that users don't like it that they have to click their way through a multipage wizard if they have to do it a lot of times. Of course you can move away a lot of this pain by choosing reasonable preferences and reasonable defaults in the pages. Nonetheless, if users are choosing values different from the defaults they would have to reenter them upon each redeployment anyway.
The additional tab in the editor could as well be a 'deployment view' in which you could provide multiple tabs that are more or less analogous to the pages of the described deployment wizard. Well maybe this is all a matter of taste and as the saying goes, you can't argue about colours and tastes of course...
Regards,
Koen
From: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruno Wassermann
Sent: vrijdag 5 mei 2006 17:59
To: 'BPEL Designer project developer discussions.'
Subject: RE: [bpel-dev] Runtime issues.Hi,
Attached is a document describing initial thoughts on how the runtime extension point (REP) in BPEL Designer is going to work. The mechanism described is basic and there are numerous points to "re-think" in the use cases.
I am in favour of a basic solution, for the time being, as it will provide us with a mechanism for deploying BPEL processes onto engines sooner rather than later (can start to realize these use cases now).
Having said that, now would be a good time to gather ideas on how to improve the deployment feature in the editor whilst catering for the needs various runtimes may have. This will allow us to gradually improve the proposed solution until we reach the 1.0 milestone release.
As James has mentioned, the WTP server framework may provide the solution we need for deployment and if not that at least some inspiration. Philip has kindly offered to share his experiences with WST as he continues to work on JBI tooling in Eclipse.
-- Bruno
P.S.:
From: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruno Wassermann
Sent: 03 May 2006 16:37
To: 'BPEL Designer project developer discussions.'
Subject: RE: [bpel-dev] Runtime issues.
At the moment, I know very little about the WST server framework.
If someone could share the wisdom and help figure out how to make use of it for our deployment purposes, that would be greatly appreciated.
-- Bruno
From: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Dodds
Sent: 03 May 2006 15:24
To: BPEL Designer project developer discussions.
Subject: Re: [bpel-dev] Runtime issues.
I have been wondering whether you could use the org.eclipse.wst.server.core.moduleTypes extension point of WST to add a jst.bpel module type, this would allow different servers to add the ability to 'recieve' deployed BPEL projects.
I've just starting digging around in here to add JBI as a module type to allow a WST registered server to work with a JBI faceted project.
Right now I'm starting to come up to speed for the JBI stuff though there might be a good opportunity to discuss whether similar principles could be applied to a BPEL project? Also a good opportunity to share resources on working to build out new module types (BPEL,JBI etc).
philipOn 5/3/06, James Moody <James_Moody@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We haven't yet created such a facet or nature, but it sounds like we might need one.
And I think, regardless of runtime restrictions (which may differ from runtime to runtime) that we *have* to allow the user to create more than one process per project. So I have a couple of suggestions:
1. We should look at the server infrastructure provided by the WTP project. This provides an extensible mechanism for registering "servers" of various types, a view for managing them (starting, stopping, etc) and also for deploying projects on them (note that Project is the unit of granularity). This is a perfect match for what we're doing here.
2. Under the covers, in the case where the user asks to deploy a project to a sever that only supports, say, a zip with a single process and some wsdls/xsds, we can of course do whatever we want - i.e. create one zip for each process in the workspace, as appropriate. This logic is up to the glue for that particular runtime.
james
bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 05/01/2006 05:18:43 PM:
> Is there a plan to make a BPEL facet or nature so that a project
> type can be created and deployed? I was wondering if that might be
> a way of integrated deployment to a server? Similar maybe to the
> EJB deployment infrastructure?
>
> P
> On 5/1/06, Michal Chmielewski <michal.chmielewski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Since we don't have right now a BPEL project per se (as for example a
> J2EE project, a Web Dynamic Project, etc), the BPEL process and it's
> locally dependent resources (schemas, wsdls) sit presumably in some type
> of a project or directory.
>
> So currently it is ok to put several BPEL processes in the same project.
>
> What are we deploying and validating and compiling then? A single
> project against a runtime (with many BPEL processes in it) or just the
> "selected" BPEL process in the project or both. The grouping of BPEL
> processes into projects is totally arbitrary and we don't have such
> groupings in the runtime.
>
> Anyhow, thought it should be said.
>
> --
> Michal Chmielewski, CMST, Oracle Corp,
> W:650-506-5952 / M:408-209-9321
>
> "Manuals ?! What manuals ? Son, it's Unix, you just gotta know."
>
> _______________________________________________
> bpel-dev mailing list
> bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev> _______________________________________________
> bpel-dev mailing list
> bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev
_______________________________________________
bpel-dev mailing list
bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev
_______________________________________________
bpel-dev mailing list
bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev
_______________________________________________
bpel-dev mailing list
bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev