Re: [jbpm-dev] jBPM5 Request for Comments - feedback

Hello Mauricio, Am 17.04.2010 15:40, schrieb Mauricio Salatino: > 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. I fully agree. It's done this way in jBPM 4.x, too. > 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. You're right. Development was focusing on this and it is already possible to execute BPMN-2.0 processes. So they weren't trying but they already showed that it worked. The most important elements like exclusive gateways, forks etc. are already supported but there is still a lot of fine tuning necessary. To clarify: If the concept talks about the PVM it talks about the PVM of jBPM 4.x? -- 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