1:06 p.m.
Hello Eric!
Am 23.04.2010 14:27, schrieb Eric D. Schabell:
I have been watching the replies and seeing what the jBPM core
community developers would be saying before responding with my own
thoughts on this topic.
My background with jBPM is not well documented here in the forums or
mailing lists. I have been using jBPM in an enterprise environment
over the last three years or so as both a developer and lead
developer. It started on the jBPM v3.1.x community versions and later
migrated to the current supported jBPM v3.2.x. I also have had
personal meetings with Tom, Joram and Koen discussing jBPM 3 and jBPM
4, be that development questions, use cases from customers or just my
experiences deploying enterprise solutions into production
environments. One award winning case was published
(http://www.schabell.org/2009/11/2009-silver-winner-for-europe-financial.html)
on the implementations we did with jBPM v3.
Thanks for introducing yourself a bit. You have mentioned that your
background is not well documentend in the forums and mailings list. Thus
this helps me a lot to understand your involvement, background and
experience with the project.
Looking at the various sections presented by Kris in the design
overview https://community.jboss.org/wiki/jBPM5RequestforComments, I
will run through each section and give my thoughts:
Architecture:
=========
This picture is clear and concise, providing a pretty good idea of
what the overview is. I miss JBoss Rules / BRMS as a block in the
Connections side. I feel that Rules is just as important as JBoss ESB
and you need to provide this to push your own products. On a side
note, the roadmap needs to come ASAP to provide clarity where the
focus is. You will see below in my evaluation, there is a focus needed
on the core functionality to make something that can make it into a
product.
I completely agree with you in this point and I also see the focus on
the core functionality.
Core process engine:
===============
When I look at this component I see many of the existing jBPM 4 branch
as being a strong candidate to be leveraged along with whatever the
Drools project has completed. Would be great if they could/would
compliment each other. I am very happy to see the PVM being the
leading theoretical foundations for the BPM suite. Three items are of
some note:
I am happy to hear this because the PVM could already demonstrate its
power when using it to start a basic BPMN 2.0 implementation. This
clearly showed that it is possible and also what can be accomplished.
1) process instance migration is mentioned as if it is about
stateless
processes. I do not see how you can manage this at all. If you show me
a process you think you can migrate, I bet I can break it.
2) process instance migration could and should be a target for moving
from one version of jBPM to the next.
From my point of view you mention two important points which should not
be forgotten. Process instance migration needs to be target or migrating
from one version to the next won't be possible.
3) jPDLv3 -> BPMN2 process definition conversion tooling is a
must and
I was pushing this before the split, with project space already setup:
http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbpm/projects/migration_tool (current
leads are more than happy to have someone to help on this conversion
tool, great place to get your feet wet in open source!)
Finally, this part of the project should have about all the attention
available to ensure a speedy delivery. This is what is needed to offer
customers a path into the future of BPM.
You're absolutely right here IHMO and I think this is the way to go. The
migration tools adds a lot of value to jBPM.
Human Tasks:
===========
Following a standard makes lots of sense. I do see this as a bit of an
external project when related to the console and form editor. First
order of business is having them available.
While I have to admit that I was sceptical at first I agreed with you.
Using a standard makes sense. I share your point of view when it comes
to treating these as seperate projects. This also ensures that these
component is independent of its presentation. There are use cases when
you don't want to use or you cannot use the included form functionality
and the console.
Process repository:
==============
I would assume that this component could also leverage the efforts of
ModeShape project maybe? Keep work to a minimum by conforming to what
they recognise as an artefact. Seems also to fall into the category of
nice to have but not yet essential to initial releases.
I don't have an opinion here (yet) since I do not know the ModeShape
project. But I am sure I'll have a look at it.
BPM Console:
==========
Looks like this can and should leverage the jBPM 4.x work, the GWT
console project, along with whatever Drools project can / has to
offer. This is nice to have stuff.
I am sure the work can be leveraged since the new console was kept
independent from the engine so I imagine this can be easily achieved. I
recall that there have been a lot of request on the forum where
jBPM3-users have been asking to support the new Console in jBPM3. IMHO
this shows that the console is a great piece of software and widely
accepted.
Eclipse-based process tooling:
======================
To leverage jBPM 4.x existing tooling and Drools project tooling. The
extra bits mentioned are again fine for later releases.
Web-based process tooling:
====================
Is Oryx / Signavio one team? I was under the impression that Drools
went one way and jBPM project another... who will win now and what are
the criteria to be judged?
Oryx is an open-source web-based process modeler.
Signavio is the
commercial offer based on Oryx. Support is available from Signavio GmbH
(Germany) and additional features.
Simulation:
========
Very advanced feature that is nice to have (would make Product sales
easy to visualize and demo's very slick) but nothing to focus on in
the initial releases I would think. This could be an apart
sub-project.
Agreed. This is a really a nice to have but should be addressed later as
you stated.
BAM / BI:
======
This is a very interesting one, how to provide without dictating what
a person is to get/use/have in the BAM/BI area. It should be about
facilitating and ease of customization. Also an apart sub-project and
not important for the initial releases.
This is indeed a hard question.
Usability:
=======
Strange mix of stuff here; Domain-specific processes (what for? why?
let's get normal process engine out there first?), install scripts
(already there?), continuous integration (leverage existing setups?),
documentation (has always been outstanding, should not slip), OSGI
(what for?).
Agreed. The "normal" process engine as you call it has priority in my eyes.
Integration:
========
Every item mentioned here in this section needs to have a block in the
architecture overview picture. Very good to leverage and use our own
projects. Make that the easiest path.
Agreed. Nothing to add.
Final thoughts, I see many panic reactions on the lists/forums with
regards to jBPM 4. Looking at this overview Kris provides, I expect
much of the jBPM 4 will function as some sort of base line for further
development. DroolsFlow will play a role and if more projects are
leveraged then this overview of a BPM suite on functionality is
achievable.
I can understand that there a some panic-like reactions. As you stated
correctly in the forums Red Hat/JBoss never stated that they will
support jBPM 4.x but I think it was just logical for the community to
assume that jBPM 4.x will replace 3.x by some time since Tom and Joram
have been employees at JBoss.
I think the first steps need to be to ensure that
customers are taken from jBPM3 to jBPM5. plan this from the beginning.
Rule #1: nobody gets left behind.
This is related to the migration tool (jPDL ->
BPMN2) and the process
instance migration and I consider this important, too.
Regards, erics
Thanks for you valueable feedback, Eric. Looking
forward to more
productive discussions on the mailing list.
Best regards
Sebastian
--
Sebastian Schneider
e-mail: Sebastian.Schneider(a)alumni.fh-aachen.de