-
15. Re: BPEL (Riftsaw) Integration
Do we need another mojo for this or simply a way to "hook" component extensions into our existing mojo? Similar to the way we handle scanner classes right now.
-
16. Re: BPEL (Riftsaw) Integration
I actually hadn't given it too much thought. I fear we'll need a new mojo, but am hoping we might be able to work something out using an extension mechanism (like scanner classes).
I'm guessing that would also mean integration with the test kit (e.g. if the test switchyard.xml differs from main).
Do you want me to start looking into this?
-
-
18. Re: BPEL (Riftsaw) Integration
Hi Rob
I've created SWITCHYARD-1302, as was thinking about getting your changes pushed - although I would need to update the quickstarts, so both those changes could be attached to this jira and applied at the same time?
In terms of the mojo, for creating the deploy.xml, this could be done against SWITCHYARD-1283 - but were you planning on doing this, or did you want me to?
Only downside of me doing it is I have less knowledge of the current mojo, scanner and testkit issues - but if you need me to pick it up I can.
Regards
Gary
-
19. Re: BPEL (Riftsaw) Integration
Hey Gary,
I can update my branch with the JIRA info and can update the quickstarts if you like (since I created this mess).
As for the mojo, I'm going with "it's gravy" and wasn't planning on looking at it in the near future (I don't mind though, in the more distant future). I still have to get the SY tools cleaned up, so we can create the component. I may look at adding a bit of validation, in the meantime to help users out.
I may create a JIRA based on my recent experience. The biggest hurdle I had (other than the arcaneness of BPEL) was the bpel.properties file used for test. It would be nice if we could wrap that up into a test mixin somehow.
Thanks again for all the feedback.
Best,
Rob
-
20. Re: BPEL (Riftsaw) Integration
Hi Rob
Rob Cernich wrote:
I can update my branch with the JIRA info and can update the quickstarts if you like (since I created this mess).
That would be great, if you don't mind
Thanks for doing this work, it has simplified the configuration, even without generating the deploy.xml for now.
Note: the jms-binding wsdl can have the port and service removed, and same for the riskAssessmentPT.wsdl in loan_approval, so this is an immediate benefit.
Once you've applied the change, I'll update the docs to reflect the different information in the deploy.xml.
Regards
Gary
-
21. Re: BPEL (Riftsaw) Integration
Guys,
If a mojo does come out of this, I think it would be great if it could live right next to our other 2 mojos (ConfigureMojo "configure" & SetVersionMojo "setVersion"), and be part of the same, one and only "switchyard" plugin that we already have? switchyard-plugin/src/main/java/org/switchyard/tools/maven/plugins/switchyard/.
Or do we think that there will be bpel dependencies that would preclude that? I'm hoping not, as we get around dependencies right now by dynamically loading the "scannerClassNames", which effetively extend the capability of the configure plugin with component-specific code.
David
-
22. Re: BPEL (Riftsaw) Integration
I don't think there is any reason to have dependencies on the BPEL component - it just needs to observe the bpel implementation definition in the switchyard.xml and create the deploy.xml from that.
Regards
Gary
-
23. Re: BPEL (Riftsaw) Integration
Hey Gary,
The changes have been pushed upstream (sorry I forgot to mention sooner).
As for the mojo, if we adopt a convention whereby the partner link names (e.g. LoanService) match the service/reference names (e.g. LoanService), we should be able to generate the deploy.xml directly from the switchyard.xml fiile. That said, there should probably be a little validation to ensure the partner link names in the bpel file match the service/reference names in the switchyard.xml file (gravy, I suppose).
The good news, when generating a new process using the tooling, the partner link name for the process role is set to the service name on the component, so...
Best,
Rob
-
24. Re: BPEL (Riftsaw) Integration
Hi Rob
Thanks.
Matching the names seems sensible anyway, as they are associated.
Regards
Gary