lol
And just when I thought I had an idea what we're trying to do ;-( At
least I did clarify one thing - I am confused. I'll watch and see what
ye come up with :-)
Mark Little wrote:
Closer integration is the goal.
Mark.
On 27 Mar 2007, at 09:36, Tom Fennelly wrote:
> Absolutely.... the only thing I can see being "unifiable" across
> these domains would be the process modeling aspects (the sexy GOP
> stuff). Even at that, I think that might sound better (and easier)
> in theory than practice - and totally irrelevant in many usecases
> (distributed, external Services etc). I don't think I'd have
> considered it as being a good idea - def not before "solving" them in
> isolation first. I was just getting the impression from some of the
> mails on this thread that unification was the goal - hence my
> confusion/concern.
>
> Bill Burke wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tom Fennelly wrote:
>>> If so, how will we make sure we can still support situations where
>>> customers want/have a Service Orchestration solution that isn't in
>>> our unified view of the world?
>>>
>>
>> How would you do this regardless if ESB is jBPM based? You'd have
>> to write inbound adapters, wouldn't you?
>>
>> Bill
>>
> _______________________________________________
> esb-dev mailing list
> esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev