[rules-users] Is Flow / jBPM dying on the vine?

[Mauricio Salatino]

Yes, your scenario is a good scenario for Drools and JBPM.
What you can do is to describe a set of rules to handle the events and
those rules can trigger processes.
In that way your process definitions will be smaller and you will be able
to handle with rules the correlation of the events.

Cheers


On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:19 PM, dunnlow <dunnlow at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thank you for the information / update.
>
> I notice that almost all of the examples that I find are user task based
> (or
> more specifically, NOT event-based, which is my use case).  I am planning
> to
> inform a process largely (but not entirely) with events.  Short of having a
> signal and gateway for every node, I don't see a way of make a jBPM process
> event based (ie pausing at nodes until certain events/rules are satisfied).
> Is this not a good use case for jBPM?
>
>  -- salaboy, I'll be waiting anxiously for that book ;-)
>
> Thanks again.  -J
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Is-Flow-jBPM-dying-on-the-vine-tp4020738p4020764.html
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>



-- 
 - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
 - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org
 - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar

 - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20121108/3db1cc49/attachment-0001.html