"kukeltje" wrote : Maybe we should have two api's per 'language', one basic that is common across process/workflow languages and an advanced one specifically for a language. For jpdl, the advanced api can be the jbpm api that is currently there. I'm just not sure though how pageflow, threadcontrol will fit in thebasic api (terminology wise) if that is a goal at all. | "heiko.braun(a)jboss.com" wrote : Maybe we should elaborate on the question how far the actual PDL influences the design of the API. This will probably reveal that different API's are required: | | - One for building a process model from XML descriptors | (Similar to what's in the PVM already) | - One for invoking on it (Client API) | - One for extending the engine capabilities (i.e. new node types) | - One to solve integration problems (TX, persistence, etc) | I think it is possible to have 1 API for all PDLs. Which would be a real achievement, given the diversity of languages that we try to cover. Let's discuss the tradeoffs in the meeting. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4181179#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...