Re: [jbpm-dev] jBPM5 Request for Comments - feedback
Hi guys,
I agree with you if we are talking about jBPM as a framework as it is
currently. But in my opinion presented concept is more like complete
platform and not only framework. That's why I suggested that authorization
should be included there as well.
Obviously it should be plug-able but I think this will be done like that by
default.
BTW, it was described already in the article, I just simple missed it.
In addition, it should be clearly shown what is the purpose of jBPM and
Drools. At this point they overlap each other in some areas which makes it a
bit confusing. As Sebastian pointed out, Drools is a good rules engine and
jBPM is a good workflow engine so focus should be on integrating them in a
easy way, that would bring a lot to both.
Regards
Maciej
2010/4/17 Sebastian Schneider <schneider(a)dvz.fh-aachen.de>
Hello Mauricio,
Am 17.04.2010 18:20, schrieb Mauricio Salatino:
> Hi Sebastian,
> Not sure about PVM, I think there are some differences with jBPM that
> need to be addressed.
> In drools flow there is already an advanced support for BPMN2, so it
> think we need to dig a little bit to find out big differences and
> missing points.
Does Drools Flow use a version of the PVM? Anyway, I never understood
completely what was the point of Drools Flow since in the first place
Drools is a business rules engine for me - and a good one - but not a
solution for the execution of complete processes.
I know that there are cases where a busines rule represents a kind of
flow and this is where Drools Flow fits in for me but I would never
consider task management part of it for example.
Just my 2 cents
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
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 2.6 KB)