All the authorization part in my opinion should be left outside of the
framework scope. Because it always depends on business needs.
The way that it's handled in Drools Flow and in jBPM 3.2.x it's a good
approach.
About BPMN2, if the PVM supports different languages, JPDL can be supported
as well, but for interoperability reasons would be nice to have BPMN2 as
priority. jBPM 4.x also has that approach right? it was trying to support
BPMN2 as far as I know.
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Sebastian Schneider <
schneider(a)dvz.fh-aachen.de> wrote:
Hello Mauricio, hello Maciej, hello folks
Am 17.04.2010 14:37, schrieb Mauricio Salatino:
> It looks really good. I'm agree to put BPMN2 as default modeling
> language. Other languages as jPDL and RuleFlow can be supported as well
> but the focus needs to be on BPMN2.
I have to say that I partly disagree here. In general the focus should
be on BPMN-2.0 but to enable users to have a smooth transition at the
beginning jPDL should have the same priority. It would provide a much
easier migration from previous engines. This again leads to the
question: How far will jBPM 5 be based upon jBPM 4.x.
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:17 PM, <swiderski.maciej(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:swiderski.maciej@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 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.
IMHO it should also be possible to leave authorization to the
application - for the reason of embeddability. So maybe this should be
configurable and pluggable. Anyway in contrast to the jBPM 4.x right
now, it should be possible to pass the username to engine when invoking
operations on the API. A common use case is the "process owner" - the
guy who started the process but also for reasons of audit and
traceability: who performed which action on the engine. I don't what
kind of support is existent in jBPM 3.2.
>
> 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?!
I understand this in the following way: a BPEL engine should fit in the
overall architecture - kind of pluggable - but jBPM should not execute
BPEL processes itself. However from the PVM's point of view this is
possible. Since it will be a BPMN-2.0 there will be webservice support
regarding service tasks since webservice calls are the only service
calls standarized by the BPMN 2.0 specification.
Regards
Sebastian
--
Sebastian Schneider
e-mail: Sebastian.Schneider(a)alumni.fh-aachen.de
_______________________________________________
jbpm-dev mailing list
jbpm-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev
--
-
http://salaboy.wordpress.com
-
http://www.jbug.com.ar
- Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -