[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Q: guidelines for reliability?
Ron, EXACTLY! This problem has already been solved by the CPA team!! Why re-invent this? The partner role stuff in BPEL is weak compared to CPA - so makes sense to upgrade here. Using your CPA you can point at the BPEL process and specify the QoS in the CPA. I've also very successfully templated this for CPA - so that the delivery options and combinations are simply drag-and-drop options within the CPA wizard UI. Makes sense for us to liaise with the CPA team to ensure that a CPA can define BPEL processing adequately. Looking at it they already have the means provided to point at a BPEL script. The BPEL engine may need to query the CPA to determine lowerlevel functionality - and that we may need to ensure there are the right "slots" for within the CPA schema. Probably an excellent exercise to go thru anyway - to quantify the details that are relevant for BPEL. Thanks, DW. ================================================================== Message text written by Ron Ten-Hove > These could be used by the deployer when selecting or creating the appropriate bindings for the abstract operation "acceptPayment". This still wouldn't help the interoperability problem -- two deployers for two different engines that must interoperate must "exchange notes" to assure compatible bindings are chosen. This starts to become a very CPA-like exercise. -Ron <
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]