[jbpm-dev] Re: Please review the BPM API

[Thomas Diesler]

The 1-Sep-2008 release covers basic functionality only. It should be 
irrespective of implementation (especially PVM implementation). Instead 
it should be discussed in terms of UML design and API javadocs.

Please comment on the specific items of that basic scope. From the 
product perspective it is necessary to stick to the agreed release 
schedule and its targets and not delay that release by another 8 weeks.

Bottom Line: BPM API for basic use cases is not a function of more 
complex PVM implementation.

cheers
-thomas

Tom Baeyens wrote:
> the way we're going now, i don't see anything growing that i can approve 
> on the API side.  so i think we need to find an alternative strategy for 
> that.
> 
> that is why i proposed to move the API part to the next release 
> (3.2.5).  if we execute on jPDL 4, then 3.2.5 is released together with 
> jPDL alpha 2.  only at that jPDL release i can get the confidence in the 
> API that i need.
> 
> regards, tom.
> 
> 
> Thomas Diesler wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> in Munich we agreed on a roadmap for a stable public API. We have a 
>> direction and path we follow. This path leads us from simple to 
>> complex until the API covers the full BPM functionality. The roadmap 
>> is documented in JIRA and for convenience in the Wiki as well
>>
>> http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpmwiki/index.php?title=JBPM3APIStatus
>>
>> Please comment on the specific road map items
>>
>>     * 1.1 Engine Shutdown
>>     * 1.2 Basic Node Sequence
>>     * 1.3 Basic Activity
>>     * 1.4 Execution Context
>>     * 1.5 Basic Transition
>>     * 1.6 Multiple Transitions
>>     * 1.7 Fork Nodes
>>     * 1.8 Join Nodes
>>     * 1.9 Process Instance Metadata
>>
>> for the 1-Sep-2008 target.
>>
>> During this week (i.e. before jira freeze) we can rearrange stuff, add 
>> and remove items. After jira freeze the road map is binding for the 
>> next release - details about the release procedure are here
>>
>> http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=138199
>>
>> AFAICS, there is no alternative roadmap laid out that lead to a stable 
>> API as is required for our BPM product.
>>
>> Again, lets be specific and not divert from the agreed path. The 
>> target for 1-Sep-2008 is coverage of basic functionality. Coverage in 
>> design, implementation, documentation and automated testing.
>>
>>
>> cheers
>> -thomas
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Baeyens wrote:
>>> I don't think this is leading to something that I can agree with.   I 
>>> think we should switch the way of working to me making modifications 
>>> to the current API until a subset of that is agreed upon.
>>>
>>> regards, tom.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas Diesler wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> please have a look and comment on the BPM API.
>>>>
>>>> http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpmwiki/index.php?title=JBPM3PublicAPI
>>>>
>>>> http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpmwiki/index.php?title=JBPM3APIStatus
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> -thomas
>>>>
>>

-- 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Diesler
Web Service Lead
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx