Re: [jbpm-dev] jBPM5 Request for Comments - feedback
Hi Sebastian,
I think it's already possible to use Drools Flow as "stateless"
process engine, but the API is not oriented on this concept so it may
be a little tricky if this is your first approach to the world of
Drools.
In conlusion, your needs are already fit with the current state of the project.
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Sebastian Schneider
<schneider(a)dvz.fh-aachen.de> wrote:
Hello Mauricio,
Am 17.04.2010 19:01, schrieb Mauricio Salatino:
> Sebastian, good to know that.
> Drools right now it's a full Business Logic integration Platform and it
> includes a complete business process engine called Drools Flow.
> The idea of the Drools platform is to be completely integrated to be
> able to use both: rules and processes to model business situations. The
> big difference in my opinion are the API and a less process centric
> vision in Drools Flow. Because the idea is to have an API focused in
> business knowledge (rules, processes, and every other business asset
> that helps us to implement business solutions).
>
> That's my two cents.
I am getting the idea and there's nothing wrong about it from my point
of view - for the right use cases. IMHO there should be separation of
the APIs for processes and rules. Imagine use cases where you just want
a process engine with a small footprint but you don't need Drools
because your own application takes the place of it (to make business
decisions) or in situations where you want or you have to use a
different external rules engine and repository - maybe even an
enterprise-wide repository.
So I tend to a modular design with a strong integration of jBPM and
Drools to get you you going fast if you want to use them both but to
leave the choice to the user.
Best 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
--
diego