[jbpm-dev] jBPM5 Request for Comments - feedback

[Mauricio Salatino]

Hi Sebastian,
Not sure about PVM, I think there are some differences with jBPM that need
to be addressed.
In drools flow there is already an advanced support for BPMN2, so it think
we need to dig a little bit to find out big differences and missing points.

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Sebastian Schneider <
schneider at dvz.fh-aachen.de> wrote:

> Hello Mauricio,
>
> Am 17.04.2010 15:40, schrieb Mauricio Salatino:
> > All the authorization part in my opinion should be left outside of the
> > framework scope. Because it always depends on business needs.
> > The way that it's handled in Drools Flow and in jBPM 3.2.x it's a good
> > approach.
>
> I fully agree. It's done this way in jBPM 4.x, too.
>
> > About BPMN2, if the PVM supports different languages, JPDL can be
> > supported as well, but for interoperability reasons would be nice to
> > have BPMN2 as priority. jBPM 4.x also has that approach right? it was
> > trying to support BPMN2 as far as I know.
>
> You're right. Development was focusing on this and it is already
> possible to execute BPMN-2.0 processes. So they weren't trying but they
> already showed that it worked. The most important elements like
> exclusive gateways, forks etc. are already supported but there is still
> a lot of fine tuning necessary.
>
> To clarify: If the concept talks about the PVM it talks about the PVM of
> jBPM 4.x?
>
> --
> Sebastian Schneider
> e-mail: Sebastian.Schneider at alumni.fh-aachen.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbpm-dev mailing list
> jbpm-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev
>



-- 
- http://salaboy.wordpress.com
- http://www.jbug.com.ar
- Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbpm-dev/attachments/20100417/b60f7c64/attachment-0001.html