[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Implementation of XPDL in jBPM
by sebastian.s
Hello Bernd,
first of all thanks for your personal assessment of this question. I've already read some of the articles you wrote about jBPM and about BPM systems in general and so it's nice to hear the opinion of somebody with your background.
I got confused a bit with the two standarized languages of the WfMC. I'm still new to the topic and to me it looked like there was a strong relation with BPMN on one side for the notation of processes and with XPDL on the other side for the execution of processes. kukultje already pointed out to me that this is not 100% true.
As far what I've seen and heard about jPDL it's not bad at all. To me it's just crucial to have a standarized format which is vendor-independent and commonly accepted. So in your opinion XPDL is not that important although it's standardised and it would make more sense to wait for BPMN 2.0 which will add semantics and process execution to the BPMN standard?
I took a look at the bonita project and one question came popping up immediately to me: Since they took the PVM to implement XPDL why didn't they contribute this to the jBPM project but started an own project instead? Of course they are free to do.
Regarding BPEL I agree. I somehow got the feeling that most people forgot the purpose of BPEL: orchestrating webservices. And the decision to use or not to use it should be based on the project requirements.
Best regards
Sebastian
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4243112#4243112
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4243112
16 years, 3 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Implementation of XPDL in jBPM
by camunda
Hi Sebastian.
In my experience, XPDL is not really very important today. It is a standard, yes, but not very well known in industrie (among decision makers at least). The WfMC simply did a bad job in merketing... One of its key features is extensability, but this leads to processes, having 80 % of its stuff in extensions. What value does such a standard have?
And BPMN 2.0 clearly target process execution as well, so I expect it to become the much more interesting option. But it is not here yet, so no option to use today.
And if you don't go for BPEL (which may be a good choice in some projects, in a lot of projects not), jPDL is a very good choice as well in my opinion. In the area of OSS it is more mature as XPDL engines. Okay, Bonita is vetry interessting as well, true, and at least they base on the PVM as well (but unfortunately an old version, hopefully they migrate to the latest one) but I think community and support is better at jBPM (If you read it: Sorry Miguel ;-))...
My two cents...
Cheers
Bernd
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4243103#4243103
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4243103
16 years, 3 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Implementation of XPDL in jBPM
by kukeltje
XPDL and BPMN are not 100% related and yes, to me XPDL sound(ed) more interesting than BPEL as wel.
Filing a feature request in Jira for XPDL on top of the PVM doen by the jBPM project is useles, it will not be supported.
But filing a jira issue for support of executable BPMN2 (once that stabilises) is an option. Gathering votes on it will help getting it priotitized. To be honest, we've had the discussion whether jBPM4 should not have used jPDL4 but based on what is available now in draft form of BPMN2 but since to much was not clear when development started, we did not. Which, by the way, I think was a good choice.
But on the other hand, if with XPDL you talk about XPDL 2.2 and that in relation to BPMN2.0 I have not much information yet. If you have that, please share it with us and/or refere to it from the Jira, either by pointing to this topic or putting the info in there directly
Regarding jBPM vs Bonita,
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4243063#4243063
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4243063
16 years, 3 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: current activity of execution
by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com
for the record: i wasn't spanking you. (at least not this time:-) i added that to the docs because you pointed out a hole in the docs. thanks !
anonymous wrote : But still, this doesn't lead to a problem with the getActivityName, or? If I am in a composite, the root execution may be in the scope/composite state, and the child in the "real" state.
exactly. the parent execution will have as execution state Execution.STATE_INACTIVE_CONCURRENT_ROOT and it should still point to the scope/composite activity. the leaves point to the real activity.
the difference with before is that each activity that has variables or timers declared on it, will also create a child token. the parent execution will be in state STATE_INACTIVE_SCOPE and the (single) child will be in state STATE_ACTIVE_ROOT
in that case the parent execution will be in state
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4242883#4242883
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4242883
16 years, 3 months