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

[KrisVerlaenen]

"thomas.diesler at jboss.com" wrote : Using the BPMN spec we created a model which is meant to accommodate the conceptual constructs from the BPM world

All these constructs sound extremely familiar of course, basically all workflow specifications and languages define these in one way or another.  What I don't see is this language is different from for example the jPDL language, WS-BPEL, XPDL or Drools Flow?  Why not use an existing process model (and possibly extend that if necesary)?

"thomas.diesler at jboss.com" wrote : With respect to DroolsFlow, I would expect that you can map your model to the API model implementing a DialectHandler
This would mean that the common API is some kind of uber process model that can be used to execute any process and that all process languages could be mapped to this language?  The PVM idea on the other hand tries to offer the flexibility of different process languages on the same execution platform without having to map everything to one core language.  Different contexts typically require different types of nodes: service orchestration is quite different from pipelining events and from healthcare processes for example.  Sometimes it's just better to allow users to plug in their own implementation (based on a generic core) than force them to translate to one specific model.

However, regardless of which process model is used internally, I think that it is possible however to define a high-level generic API in how the user interacts with the different BPM components: repository, runtime engine, monitoring, etc.

Kris


View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4168475#4168475

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4168475