[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: meeting context

First and foremost I believe that evaluating and incorporating BPMN terminology and semantics into the product is generally positive. People at conferences and courses often ask about it and it would be good to have a concrete story to tell. That said, BPMN is far from feature complete. Even if it provides a visual notation and semantics it does not (and should not) define an execution model. Hence BPMN should be an influence and not an objective. Second, regarding the API, I believe that making it useful for any process language is an exercise best suited for research rather than practical applications. The differences between process languages are being somewhat downplayed to the point of calling them dialects. For example, you do not normally interact with a BPEL process through an API to begin with. You interact it through the WSDL interfaces defined by the process author. However, a generic API to cover the common subset of all process languages is certainly desirable and in fact already exists in the PVM. I think the meeting should be about the specific API to cover the features of our preferred process language. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4181317#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...