Re: [jbpm-dev] jBPM5 Request for Comments
Hello Alexander!
Am 19.04.2010 16:51, schrieb McManus,Alexander:
We're using jBPM 4 at the PVM level to support a Groovy-based
domain-specific process language. In any new version, I'd like to see
the PVM API more formally defined and documented - at the moment it
feels like we are taking a risk messing about in the internals of jBPM.
Perhaps the PVM could be a separate sub-project in its own right? This
hard separation might also help improve its design - it seems to be
getting more muddled with each release of jBPM 4, for example exposing
implementation classes in APIs rather than the interfaces they
implement.
AFAIK it was Tom's intention to position the PVM as a separate
sub-project. I think that this is an important aspect and it also
matches the vision presented by JBoss (being prepared for additional
process execution languages).
I'd also like to see the back of the strange
dependency-injection/configuration framework in jBPM, and be able to use
any DI framework (e.g. Spring) to fully configure jBPM.
FULL ACK. There are always
a couple of request on the forums asking for
better spring support. If it's possible to support any or at least some
well-established DI Frameworks I'd go for it.
Thanks, Alex.
Thanks for your valueable feedback.
Sebastian
--
Sebastian Schneider
e-mail: Sebastian.Schneider(a)alumni.fh-aachen.de