[jbpm-dev] [Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: meeting context

[heiko.braun@jboss.com]

anonymous wrote : 
  | These 3 aspects
  | * node pluggability
  | * pluggable aspects
  | * embeddability
  | lead to the design goals of the PVM based approach to jBPM 4. 
  | 

Good point. Let's talk about design goals, but in the context of the upcoming meeting. AFAIK the meeting is about the API and CTS, right?
Then we should put the focus on questions related to that domain. Thomas came up with a list of  basic concepts that he would like to see addressed in the API:

- ProcessEngine, Process, ProcessDefinition
- StartEvent (None, Signal, Message)
- Task (None, Send, Receive)
- EndEvent (None, Signal, Message)
- Gateway (Inclusive, Exclusive, Parallel)
- Process, Activity Properties
- Process, Activity Assignments
- Signal, Message
- SequenceFlow

This however is not married to BPMN it merely borrows terminology. Why?  
Becasue BPMN terminology is very precise and avoids redundancy.

All of these items do have associated semantics and it should be our first task to make sure everyone has same understanding of what this actually means. This will predict the implementation that follows.

Starting off with the jbpm4 code base and API doesn't work because a successful discussion with all participants requires a certain level of abstraction. We need to talk about what should be there instead of what is possible with the current implementation.

Once we agree on how these basic concepts relate to each other
(and I hardly believe that we manage to so in 3 days) then we could move on to topics that build upon that:

Process dialects
- handling multiple process dialects
- extending process dialect elements 
- extending the core engine capabilities

Embeddability
- transactions
- persistence
- security





View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4180773#4180773

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4180773