"thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : Using the BPMN spec we created a model which
is meant to accommodate the conceptual constructs from the BPM world
All these constructs sound extremely familiar of course, basically all workflow
specifications and languages define these in one way or another. What I don't see is
this language is different from for example the jPDL language, WS-BPEL, XPDL or Drools
Flow? Why not use an existing process model (and possibly extend that if necesary)?
"thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : With respect to DroolsFlow, I would expect
that you can map your model to the API model implementing a DialectHandler
This would mean that the common API is some kind of uber process model that can be used to
execute any process and that all process languages could be mapped to this language? The
PVM idea on the other hand tries to offer the flexibility of different process languages
on the same execution platform without having to map everything to one core language.
Different contexts typically require different types of nodes: service orchestration is
quite different from pipelining events and from healthcare processes for example.
Sometimes it's just better to allow users to plug in their own implementation (based
on a generic core) than force them to translate to one specific model.
However, regardless of which process model is used internally, I think that it is possible
however to define a high-level generic API in how the user interacts with the different
BPM components: repository, runtime engine, monitoring, etc.
Kris
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4168475#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...