[jbpm-dev] jBPM4 Design Topics

[Joram Barrez]

Thomas,

Thanks for putting your ideas clearly in a document. It helps me to
understand some things you've been saying.

There are points in the document that deserve discussion.However, I do get
the impression that you see the ideal jBPM as a 'standalone service'. ie you
signal a process to start and then poll the service until you get a
response. This is a valid use case, ie the JBoss server + the enterprise
jbpm EJBs come close to this idea (altough the are some flaws, that is
true).

But I think that you are forgetting that many (or almost every, altough in
my experience) use jBPM in an embedded way. Many use cases see a process
engine call as an integral part of some business logic unit of work that has
to run in the same transaction. For example a save to the database of a
domain model (employee for example) is only valid when the enlisting process
is started correctly.

This is the great strength of jBPM, compared to other products (mostly
exposing BPM as a service that can be queried through some (remote) api),
that jBPM can easily be embedded in any technology: I've used jBPM with
Spring, with EJBs (MDB, statelss SB), as a webservice, etc. Many vendors
provide monolithic BPM service products. I think jBPM has become popular
with developers because it is exactly the opposite.

Please clarify if I'm seeing this all wrong! But the opinion I got when I
read your document was not that of an embeddable BPM engine.

If I see the level of the dicussion going on nowadays, I'm really looking
forward to next week!

Regards

Joram

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Tom Baeyens <tbaeyens at redhat.com> wrote:

> Thanks !
> This preparation will make the discussions a lot more effective/productive.
>
> regards, tom.
>
> ps. for the third time, please don't involve Kris in this before
> synchronizing with me.  It will be hard enough for our team to synchonize
> internally.  Kris' opinion differs at even completely other aspects.  And I
> didn't see yet the necessary flexibility from him to get him involved.  For
> the time being, I'll deal with that.  And I'll get him involved when there
> is a chance of unification of the two efforts.
>
>
> Thomas Diesler wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> in preparation for the meeting in Antwerp, here a few design
>> considerations
>>
>> http://www.jboss.org/community/docs/DOC-12855
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback and look forward to meeting you next week.
>>
>> cheers
>> -thomas
>>
>>
> --
> regards, tom.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbpm-dev mailing list
> jbpm-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbpm-dev/attachments/20081030/024eaf7d/attachment.html