Tom, a definite yes to more types of relationships. My business (telecom) requires more complex relationships than jpdl provides. I need the ability to syncronize without merge on certain nodes across processes and sub-processes as well as tokens--and to synchronize various ways. I also need the ability to "multi-parent", or "share", a process. I've already had to build the ability to multi-parent a process (orthagonal to jbpm) and am starting to work on doing the same thing for synchronization without merge. Here are two use cases: Synchronization without merge. A customer may buy several complex services from us, each of which has its own provisioning process. Each product can be billed when it reaches a particular state midway through its execution, but the customer cannot be billed until all products on a single order have become billable. Here, we need to synchronize across subprocesses, without merging. Multi-Parented processes. Again, a customer may buy several complex services from us, each of which has its own provisioning process. At some time, we'll want to schedule a technician to visit the customer's location and set up as much as possible in one visit. The scheduling and management of the technician's visit is its own process and becomes a loosely coupled 'subprocess' to several other product provisioning process. The 'multi-parent' bit is probably outside the scope of your question, but these examples underscore a need to define node-to-node relationships that are both more complex than what we have now and that extend beyond the bounds of a single process instance. Thanks, Britt View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982467#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...