On 15 Feb 2006, at 14:48, Lance Waterman wrote:
In the spirit of nailing down criteria, I would agree with;
... avoid the BPEL
engine having to write a container, a deployment model and a suite of
'binding components' to different SOAP stacks, WS-* policies and
transports - together with all the runtime management.
With regard to "runtime management" I am thinking transactions,
resource
allocation, etc ... but not BPEL process instance management.
Agreed - the BPEL engine must do its own persistence. Hopefully the
BPEL engine can also expose a bunch of MBeans for management too. But
the BPEL engine could rely on an external container such as JBI to
handle runtime hot-deployment of BPELs etc
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
