[jbpm-dev] [Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Making the BPM API more generic?

[jbarrez]

anonymous wrote : .. split the API into a more generic part (offering methods to interact with processes of any type) and allow specific process languages (like jPDL3 or 4 or Drools Flow) to extend this API with more specific constructs. ... API for interacting with a process engine (starting processes, signalling events , communicating with external services, etc.) can all be made independent of the underlying process model and implementation (

Isn't this what the PVM is all about: extracting what is generic and allowing process languages to be built on top of that?

If I'm following the discussions here, the 'BPM API' is something that is separated from the PVM, since it is a refactoring of jBPM3.

I call myself a 'jbpm power-user' since I use it on a daily basis in real-life projects. But I find it quite confusing that these 'BPM API' and 'PVM' ideas seem separated while efforts should be bundled to have a better product. If I'm wrong (which would be good), please correct me.

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4168444#4168444

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4168444