Here are some more things to consider:
1. jPDL is Process Description Language. Now in my eyes the node is
pretty much a ESB service and I think that all fits pretty well. But the
thing that is missing is the description of the connection between
processes, the bus in ESB terms. So I think we'd need to extend jPDL
here, to be able to describe that 'bus connection'.
2. As soon as we accept buses between nodes then we may break out into
different JVMs, each having their own configuration file. I think this
is something that is missing right now too. We'd need some kind of
demarcation.
3. Can this foundation be extended to support managing/monitoring
messages and errors in the ESB nerwork? I think jBPM wants this too BTW.
--K
Bill Burke wrote:
Burr Sutter wrote:
> jBPM 4.0 isn't due until late Q1/early Q2 2008. If we had specific
> requirements we might be able to get the jBPM team focused on a
> deliverable between now and and then but the challenge for jBPM is
> focus: human-centric BPM/workflow or service-centric orchestration.
Again, i think the changes to jBPM that ESB needs are a fundamental
thing that the jBPM team needs anyways. Like lifecycle.
Man, you're full of excuses.
Bill