BPMN is a vendor specification. It addresses BPM requirements from the perspective of
those vendors who wrote it, not necessarily from the perspective of users. Even if
significant research has gone into it, that does not mean it addresses the needs of the
jBPM community.
There are many elements in BPMN 1.1 that have neither been implemented nor requested in
jPDL. Examples include the message flow, lanes within pools, and several event triggers
and gateway types. Plus, BPMN defines the model semantics but does not address the
execution. It is like having the Java Language Spec without the JVM Spec. Some vendors,
e.g. Intalio, use BPEL as the execution spec. However, BPEL addresses orchestration, not
workflow, and does not really fill the bill.
I see no advantage in centering our execution design on BPMN: it imposes extraneous
requirements and shreds no light on our particular challenges. I believe we should center
it on our experiences with jBPM 3, and take BPMN compatibility as a secondary criterion.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4164933#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...