This weekend I was watching The Love Guru, where Guru Pitka (Mike Meyers) is a self help guru working on people’s relationship issues with a set of clichés. It occurs to me that some of his concepts - into-me-I-see and the only way out is in - applies to the business IT collaboration issue too.
Last month BPM 10gR3 became generally available. Although it is a bit of old news by now, what better news to start this blog with!
As you may know, BPM is the ALBPM product we acquired from BEA; the 10gR3 release is what is commonly referred to as the 100 day release for BEA acquired products.
A had a little mail conversation with Diplom-Informatiker Gerald G. Koch of the University of Stuttgart (Germany) on how in academia the difference between CEP and ESP is defined. I think it is interesting to share his explanation with the community (which he allowed me to, of course).
ESP has some specific characteristics:
I was quite surprised to note that there was no easy way to compare an XPath expression to a static list of values in BPEL.
For example, if we have to check for the condition that a given str_var variable in BPEL has one of the following values: ('A','B','C',D'), then the expression to be used can only be:
bpws:getVariableData('str_var') = 'A' or bpws:getVariableData('str_var') = 'B' or bpws:getVariableData('str_var') = 'C' or bpws:getVariableData('str_var') = 'D'
Now also Udi Dahan joined the debate on CEP, EDA and SOA. Udi is a respected visionary on SOA and EDA, whose opinion I most of the time (if not always) highly agree with.
The nice thing about Udi is that he is able to explain architectural concepts in terms of practical code-level examples.
In his article SOA, EDA and CEP a winning combo he says:
Mark Palmer from StreamBase stated in a comment on Alex' weblog that CEP brings fundamentally disruptive capabilities to EDA.
I think CEP is not really revolutionary. Event processing and correlation has evolved from interrupt handling in computer systems and actuator/sensor technologies in industrial processes which already exist for decades.
This question gets asked a lot, particularly as there is a cost in implementing automated tests. There is also a benefit, but it is harder to quantify. When a development team has a limited amount of time between releases there is often a preference to implement new functionality rather than automate testing for existing functionality.
Here is a little twister on Oracle sequence object.
Typically, when we invoke a nextval operation on a sequence object, the current value of the sequence is incremented by 1 and the incremented value is returned. Our assumption here is that this happens irrespective of when and where the nextval operation is invoked.
Turns out that we may be way wrong in our assumptions...
Let us say we have a sequence object named DUMMY_S and its current value is 1.
What would we expect to happen when we execute the following SQL statement?