"kukeltje" wrote : "heiko.braun(a)jboss.com" wrote : anonymous wrote : | | | Now I'm kind of lost... you start with saying it is about the api and not the process language, and now it is mostly the language (elements are for me language constructs) | | | | | | | Interesting question. 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) | | | | | +10 | I like the use of jaxb as Thomas is doing. Not fully sure why, but it feels right. | | "heiko.braun(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | | | But to answer your question, I'd say that core elements are not language constructs. They are building blocks that predict core runtime capabilities, independent of the actual PDL. | | | To some extend you are correct, but if you search the net for problems regarding mapping bpmn to bpel or xpdl (improved with bpmn 2.0 and xpdl 2.0) it is not that easy and so they are not independent. | Oops, forgot to correct this statement after reading (and answering) the last statement in your previous post. I tend to agree with your statement, it all came down to terminology again ;-) Implementing an xml based language is then creating a xml binding and in that re-use or extend the building blocks (core elements, base classes for activities in the pvm) to use the pvm api View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4181005#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...