Release 5
by marco sabatini
When release 5 will be on line? It's very interesting for us and we,d want
to know the period of release.
Thanks a lot,
regards.
--
-------------------------------------------
Linkedin Account: http://it.linkedin.com/in/sabatinimarco
mobile: +39 3313852736
skype: marco.sabatini1
"Laudamus veteres, sed nostri utemur annis"
-------------------------------------------
16 years
jBPM5 Request for Comments
by Kris Verlaenen
Over the last few years, we have accumulated a lot of knowledge and
experience in various BPM-related projects here at JBoss, and in an
effort to consolidate that, we would like to combine our efforts in what
will be the next generation BPM platform, called jBPM5.
jBPM5 will be based on the combined experience of jBPM and Drools Flow
(and related projects like RiftSaw and Overlord), and will bring
together the benefits of both solutions (and much more). As part of this
process, we would like to ask you, our community, for feedback and
assistance on this.
The architecture of jBPM5 builds on the experience that was built up
over the past few years based on our customer feedback as well as strong
community involvement. It will continue the vision of all of the
constituent projects, so large parts of the architecture that is
presented here will probably not come as a surprise to you, either
because it already exists in a current project or because it has been on
the roadmap for quite some time (e.g. BPMN2).
Nevertheless, wide feedback is very important to us, and we have
therefore constructed a “Request for Comments” document which describes
(what we believe could be) the new architecture of jBPM5. Now is the
time for the community that has helped shape these projects so well in
the past to do so again.
http://community.jboss.org/wiki/jBPM5RequestforComments
This not only includes an overview of the most important components, but
also some of the key characteristics. Based on this architecture (and
the feedback we receive), we will roll out a roadmap for jBPM5.
We would like to welcome any feedback feedback on this proposal, using
the jbpm-dev(a)lists.jboss.org mailing list, or in private by sending your
comments to your JBoss contact. If you want to subscribe to the jbpm-dev
mailing list or browse the archive, use:
http://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev
Kris
16 years
document based workflows
by Pau Carré Cardona
Hello,
I have seen the architecture model of jBPM 5 and it seems very complete.
Anyway, I don't understand why you do not finish the jBPM 4 designer before
developing the jBPM 5 version.
The request I have is based on the introduction of information in the BPM
system. Forms are a good way to map BPM variables, specially if those forms
have validation and are dynamic. This forms are specially well suited when
interacting with external individuals (such as citizens in a government
administration).
But forms are not suited for internal workflow in document based BPM. Lets
say that, for internal work, a user should send a document and wants the
information of this document be processed by the BPM engine for validation,
routing or whatever. In this case the BPM engine should have two features:
1.- Allow to open a document template, allow to edit it and send it to the
destination of the task.
2.- Map some parts of the text into workflow variables for internal
processing.
The first feature seems to be trivial but the BPM engine should have some
kind of template linked to the task so the user only have to modify certain
parts. For this purpose the BPM should have an HTML rich editor that can
read templates from the workflow definition.
The second feature can be easily done using custom TAGs. For example, one
can write the TAG $<destination_name> in the document wherever the document
should have the name of the destination user. Then, the user could write the
value of the TAG $<destination_name> or optionally this value could be
computed by the BPM engine. This way it is trivial to map the text content
to variables.
The Balearic Islands Government have developed a jBPM 3 opensource project
that allows users to edit documents with Open Office using templates stored
in the tasks. Then users can edit them and FreeMarker parses the ODF
document extracting the values of the variables. I think it is a good
starting point to evaluate document-based workflows.
Here you have a presentation of the project:
http://www.plaanibal.com/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=11763&folderI...
http://www.plaanibal.com/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=11763&folderI...
The text is in Catalan but slides are self-explaniatiory.
Pau Carré Cardona
16 years
general interface
by Jorge L. Middleton
I would like to have a different rendering engines to support general interface or a web services API to access the workflow engine.
Thanks
Jorge
16 years
jBPM 4.x dead end?
by Peterson, Scott
To me, jBPM 5 looks a lot more like Drools Flow than jBPM 4.x: for example, the vision includes WS-HT, integrated rules/events, and apparently no support for jpdl. I think it's a cool vision but it really does make jBPM 4.x look like a dead end that I should avoid. Am I reading the tea leaves wrong?
One suggestion is to go through the jBPM 4.4 and 4.x issues and decide which go in the "Won't fix" category.
Also, I'd like your opinion. If I'm just starting out on a 12-18 month project, am I better off using Drools Flow instead of jBPM 4.x? In which project will bugs get fixed and features get added? Which project will make it easier to move to jBPM 5?
Thanks
Scott
</pre><br>-----Message Disclaimer-----<br><br>This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply email to Connect(a)principal.com and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from the Principal Financial Group or any of its member companies may be retained as required by law or regulation.<br><br> Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an Electronic signature for purposes of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) or the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ("E-Sign") unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.<br><br>While this communication may be used to promote or market a transaction or an idea that is discussed in the publication, it is intended to provide general information about the subject matter covered and is provided with the understanding that The Principal is not rendering legal, accounting, or tax advice. It is not a marketed opinion and may not be used to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code. You should consult with appropriate counsel or other advisors on all matters pertaining to legal, tax, or accounting obligations and requirements.<br><pre>
16 years
Re: [jbpm-dev] jBPM5 Request for Comments
by Xu Hui Sheng
Hi Kris,
Thanks for your reply.
Please let me know if there is any thing I can help on jBPM 4.
There are more and more people around me plaining to use jBPM for their project's process engine. Beside a core processEngine, many people intend to use a complete BPM solution. I think that is what jBPM5 aim to, see the BAM, Report(BI) and so and.
And I am also agree the opinion of Sebastian that jBPM5 could use a popular DI container, like spring or guice, we needn't create a DI container by ourself. Then we could focus on ehancing the core process engine and related modules.
In addition, it may be a wonderful thing if jBPM5 could support BPEL. the PVM definitely has ability to do this. It will make the integartion from BPEL and BPMN more easier.
2010-04-20
Xu Hui Sheng
WebSite: http://www.family168.com/
16 years
Re: [jbpm-dev] jBPM5 Request for Comments
by 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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?).
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.
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 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.
Regards, erics
16 years
Re: [jbpm-dev] jBPM5 Request for Comments - feedback
by Xu Hui Sheng
Hi Alejandro,
Thanks for you reply. It a big help for me to hearing jboss will go on maintaining jBPM 4. There are lots of projects are using or planning to use jBPM4 because of its simplity api and database design. But there are still many unfixed issue on the JIRA, we don't known when these issues could be fixed. I known you are very busy, maybe I can do some help for maintaining jBPM4. A clear plan for releasing jBPM4 is very appreciate.
I realized that jBPM5 will focus on BPMN2 stardard implementation, so I think it will be a good message for developer that it can still support jPDL, because the purpose of PVM is provide a platform to support multiple process language. Like at this time, jBPM 4 could support both jPDL4 and BPMN2. A few days early, I did some try on moving BPEL on PVM, the process language definition is not very hard. So If jBPM5 could enhance the PVM, we could custom our own process language on it. I have no doubt that jBPM5 will become a wonderful project.
cheers
2010-04-20
Xu Hui Sheng
WebSite: http://www.family168.com/
16 years
jBPM5 Request for Comments - feedback
by swiderski.maciej＠gmail.com
Hi,
first of all - I am glad to see some formal activities around jBPM.
I would like to suggest to put some focus as well on authorization that
should provide at least some basic option to restrict access to selected
processes to users with granted roles, etc.
There was mentioned that jBPM 5 will have WSHT - does it mean it will
provide extensive support for web services? Currently it is not there and I
think Riftsaw is dedicated for Web Service orchestration (BPEL). How jBPM
will fit into that?!
In general, it looks very promising and I am looking forward to it.
Cheers,
Maciej
16 years
Re: [jbpm-dev] jBPM5 Request for Comments
by Xu Huisheng
Hi Kris:
I am glad to see there is still a plan for jBPM. But I can't find more details in this roadmap. It is just design a overall view for jBPM5, but there is still many problem in jBPM 4. If there is a plan to maintain the current version of jBPM 4.x, it will very helpful to us.
In the jBPM 5 archetecture figure, there is just a 'Core Process Engine' but no more details for the PVM and jPDL. Will we drop the support of jPDL and turn to the BPMN and drools? Because I just find 'jBPM (3.x) convert plan' here. So I think whether we could make a more clearly details for the PVM and jPDL4?
Thank you very much, thanks for you great jobs.
2010-04-17
Huisheng Xu
16 years
