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