[jbpm-dev] Re: jBPM 4 limitations

[Tom Baeyens]

Martin Putz wrote:
> I really appreciate this initiative. When it's time for the supported 
> jBPM 4 version, we need to make this clear to customers as well, either 
> by removing the unsupported elements, or by having a clear statement in 
> the docs. Has this list made it into a JIRA (docs) issue already?

in jBPM 4 we split up the documentation in 2 separate guides:
* userguide : supported
* developersguide : unsupported

there is also a new, clear, minial API that can be used in all the supported 
environments.

> The limitations make sense to me. It's not going to make all our 
> existing jBPM 3 customers happy, but our current model of half-baked 
> support for some features or configurations is not satisfying either.

absolutely agree.

> Another aspect that has been discussed already, but for which I'm not 
> sure what the outcome was, are our 'migration' plans. I reckon we can 
> have jBPM 3 & 4 side-by-side, but are we going to offer some further 
> help to move from jBPM 3 to 4? Not thinking about full DB migration, but 
> conversion tools for processes including how-to docs?

exactly our plans:

* support side by side.  we're making sure there are no package overlaps and db table 
name clashes.  but after the current iteration we could do with some help of 
productization people to actually test the side by side thing.

* a process conversion tool is what we have planned.  Jim Ma is workin on that.  DB 
migration is not planned.

regards, tom.


> Martin
> 
> 
> Burr Sutter wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tom Baeyens wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Burr Sutter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Baeyens wrote:
>>>>> 2 more
>>>>>
>>>>> * no user provided hibernate sessions
>>>>> * no user provided jdbc connections
>>>>>
>>>> Would our jBPM3 customers think these are "losses"?
>>>
>>> in my estimation, I think that less then 1% of our users uses this 
>>> feature.
>> Very good, I think you, Alejandro and Martin would have the best 
>> insight into what features are used or not.
>>>
>>>>> regards, tom.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Baeyens wrote:
>>>>>> Burr,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In jBPM 4 one of the main goals is to improve the supportability.  
>>>>>> Therefor we are seriously expanding the QA capabilities in the 
>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another part of that is clearly indicate what environments and 
>>>>>> configurations we support and which not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are a couple of limitations that I'ld like to start with from 
>>>>>> a product perspective:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * only one jBPM instance on a jboss server
>>>> Can I have several .wars or .ears that all use that jBPM instance? 
>>>
>>> yes
>>>
>> Excellent, I think that is pretty critical, at least for smaller shops 
>> & developers.  Large IT shops may only have a single application 
>> running on a single instance of AS but I don't think that is the norm.
>>>>>> * only installation and configuration of jbpm as in the soa platform
>>>> What does this statement mean?
>>>
>>> configuration of transaction related stuff:
>>>  - jbpm configured to bind to JTA
>>>  - jbpm command interceptor with JTA required semantics
>>>  - jbpm configured to use hibernate's current session
>>>  - jbpm configured to not create hibernate transactions
>>>  - hibernate configured with a xa datasource
>>>  - job executor configured as in the soa platform
>>>
>>> we create a set of configurations for jBPM, app server and hibernate 
>>> so that it works.  users have to stick with the configuration we 
>>> provide and for which we have QA set up.
>>>
>>> we saw in jbpm 3 that a lot of users burned their fingers if they 
>>> start messing with these transactional settings.  e.g. let spring 
>>> manage the transaction.
>>>
>>> jbpm 4 has improved conofigurability.  but we must only support those 
>>> configuration sets for which we have QA running.
>> Solid strategy.
>>>
>>>>>>  - distribution ships with an ant based installer that installs 
>>>>>> jbpm into jboss
>>>> Do we limit the support of jBPM to just JBoss EAP & SOA-P?  
>>>> Historically, we've supported BEA, IBM, Tomcat, J2SE, etc.
>>>
>>> Yes.  Unless we have QA set of for it in the project.
>> I have always felt this was an unnecessary risk and had asked for this 
>> limitation before now and it will be a problem for several jBPM 3 
>> users/customers.  However, we can increase our "platform" support in 
>> future months based on specific user feedback.
>>>
>>> With the infrastructure we have in place now, it should be pretty 
>>> straightforward to add such a container like e.g. Tomcat.  But it 
>>> takes work that has lower priority then embedding jBPM 4 into SOA-P 5.
>>>
>>> This is just a resource issue.  In the project, next target (after 
>>> SOA-P 5) would be Tomcat.  I don't know know when we'll be able to 
>>> deliver on that as SOA-P 5 takes precedence.
>> WAS, WLS, EWS (supported Tomcat) would be higher priorities in my book 
>> but I understand the project's need to be seen as Tomcat friendly in 
>> order to increase adoption.
>>>
>>>>>>  - jbpm is installed in jbpm as a service archive
>>>> jBPM is already be pre-installed inside of SOA-P, is there anything 
>>>> in jBPM4 that requires it to be in a .sar?
>>>
>>> jBPM 4 installation is a combination of a sar, libs, configs and some 
>>> ejbs.
>>>
>>> the sar part is necessary to publish the central jbpm ProcessEngine 
>>> object into JNDI when JBoss boots.
>> OK, I'm assuming that you'll work closely with Kevin whenever the 
>> integration task comes up in the future.
>>>
>>>>>>  - jbpm ProcessEngine is published in JNDI
>>>> Sounds good
>>>>>>  - hibernate session factory configuration as part of the jbpm 
>>>>>> installation
>>>> Does this mean that a user can't "hijack" the hibernate session and 
>>>> "work around" jBPM's use?
>>>
>>> They can but we should not support those scenarios until we have QA 
>>> set up for these.
>> Makes sense to me.
>>>
>>>>>>  - jta transaction integration
>>>> excellent
>>>>>>  - timer and async message run through our JobExecutor
>>>>>> * only jboss idm identity component integration
>>>> Will the JBoss Identity component ship with EAP5? Or is this a 
>>>> component that jBPM will include in its own jars?
>>>
>>> It is targetted to ship with SOA-P 5.  They seem to be on track as well.
>> But what about EAP/AS users?  We'll need to support that as a platform 
>> with the identity component.
>>>
>>>>>> * no async messaging through JMS
>>>> That will make some jBPM3 users unhappy. NTT feels this will add 
>>>> scalability, especially in a cluster.
>>>
>>> Same here.  We have all functional components in place, but except 
>>> for QA.  Setting that up requires productization resources which we 
>>> don't have.  So that work is now serialized and will have to be 
>>> prioritized after GA.
>> This one feels a bit "high priority" to me only because some high 
>> profile customer made such a big deal out of it.   With that said, I'm 
>> not sure if the jBPM4 architecture without JMS is vastly better than 
>> jBPM3 therefore the need for JMS just goes away.  Only you can make 
>> that call.
>>>
>>>>>> * no timer support through EJB Timer
>>>>>> * no spring transaction integration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We might be offering those to the community in order to get 
>>>>>> feedback and flesh these out.  But until those extra features get 
>>>>>> stable and we have the necessary QA build out, I would like not to 
>>>>>> introduce those into the product.  This focus will help us to 
>>>>>> deliver in time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do these seem reasonable limitations to you ?
>>>> Will these items ship in the .jars/.zips that we send to customers?
>>>
>>> Good question.  We're building the userguide docs so that those can 
>>> be shipped as-is to customers.
>>>
>>> But in terms of disabling actual features as part of the sanetization 
>>> process, i didn't give that much thought yet.
>> OK, either we need to be able to "cut" the feature out of the product 
>> zip OR we need to make it really easy in the docs to see that it is 
>> "technology preview".   Ideally it would just get removed.  We did 
>> this recently with Drools->BRMS, several files from the .org version 
>> were removed as they were too experimental.
>>>
>>>>>> Do you see other jBPM aspects that need clarification if they are 
>>>>>> supported or not ?
>>>> Martin P would be one of the best resources to ask what should be 
>>>> "in" vs "out".
>>>
>> I've copied Martin, I guess I should have from the "get go".
>>

-- 
regards, tom.