Re: [jbpm-dev] BPMN 2.0 implementation
Hi Sebastian,
See inline
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Sebastian Schneider <
schneider(a)dvz.fh-aachen.de> wrote:
Good evening folks!
A few days ago I read Joram's great blog post about BPMN 2.0 and jBPM:
http://www.jorambarrez.be/blog/2009/12/04/jbpm-goes-bpmn/
First of all my congratulations for your work and thanks to everybody
who is putting effort into this. It is really astonishing to see how the
PVM can be leveraged to implement BPMN 2.0.
Regarding the implementation I have some questions:
You seem to have implemented a basic parsing of BPMN 2.0 process
definitions already. Does this mean that the OMG has agreed on a
serialization format? From what I could see in Joram's post it is not XPDL.
No it's definitely not XPDL, but a BPMN2 specific format.
The serialization format is not yet 100% completed, but stable enough to
already build an implementation for it.
In his post Joram wrote that task-forms can already be used with BPMN
process definitions. Is the storage of the necessary information about
which form to use a jBPM-specific thing, a BPMN standard or a kind of
extension which is supported by BPMN?
The BPMN spec has a 'rendering' element, but the actual content of that
element is not in the spec.
This means that these things will be vendor-specific.
Are you planning to extend the GPD to support modelling in BPMN 2.0?
Or will it be possible in the future to use the Signavio Editor to
design process models which are executable? AFAIK right now they use
their own file format to store BPDs and jPDL in case you are using the
jBPM stencil set which is quite limited.
We are currently very close collaborating with Signavio to be able to create
executable processes through their editor.
If all goes well, we should have some announcement regarding that topic
before the 4.3 release.
AFAIK there is the Eclipse BPMN modeler. Assuming they are going to
support BPMN 2.0 it would be possible to use this editor, right? So
implementating an own BPMN-2.0 Eclipse editor would not make sense?
What's your opinion on this?
The more editors, the better ;-) Definitely if they are open source ;-)
Koen did already take a look at the BPMN modeler by Eclipse, but they have
nothing very concrete yet.
For me personally, a BPMN2 editor would make sense, since some things (code
completion, class searching, etc) make the life of the developer easy.
Regards
Joram
Lots of questions. I'd love to hear your statements and your opinions on
these.
Sebastian
--
Sebastian Schneider
_______________________________________________
jbpm-dev mailing list
jbpm-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 4.0 KB)