Yes. :-) I'll bug them next ;-)
Mark Little wrote:
BTW, did you know jBPM has its own microcontainer ;-)?
Mark.
On 26 Mar 2007, at 13:31, Bill Burke wrote:
>
>
> Burr Sutter wrote:
>> My point is we have plenty of time to worry about this issue
>> considering the jBPM team has a really long term set plan (a rewrite
>> to be multi-process language focused) plus the fact that it has a
>> human-centric workflow concern that is less directly related to the
>> needs of the ESB.
>> Now, we can certainly discuss how much more important are the needs
>> of the ESB vs things like multi-language and human task management.
>> Please sell me on the idea of lifecycle as it relates to jBPM. The
>> instantiation and manipulation of a jBPM process is primarily a
>> series of database transactions.
>
> Um, jBPM doesn't have to be a series of database transactions. That's
> the user's decision.
>
> As far as lifecycle goes, right now jbpm works the same way as ESB 4.0
> worked. Actions are created per invocation on the action. We need
> actions that are created when the process definition starts so that
> they can hold state and shared between process instances. ESB would
> also need pluggable transition implementations so that per transition,
> the developer can decide how the transition happens (over JMS for
> instance).
>
> Bill
>
> --Bill Burke
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> esb-dev mailing list
> esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev