On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Sebastian Schneider
<schneider@dvz.fh-aachen.de> wrote:
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?
--