Tom's already putting his armour on ;-)
Mark.
On 26 Mar 2007, at 15:19, Bill Burke wrote:
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
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat Inc.