12:09 p.m.
Hello everybody,
as requested by Kris I am reposting my feedback on the mailing list:
1.) Will jBPM 5.0 be based upon jBPM 4.x? You mention the PVM and the
native BPMN 2.0-implementation. So I assume it will be. Am I right?
2.) What's the reason for replacing the task management with WS-Human
Task? The task life cycle model? Will this be implemented as a
webservice as most of the other vendors do or will you supply a java
implementation using the same model? You are stating that the engine
will continue to be embeddable so I hope this will be a java
implementation of the task life cycle model.
3.) Will JBoss ESB be an optional component? I am thinking of
embeddability again. Why use an ESB when you don't need one? One of the
strengths of jBPM IMHO is the small footprint.
4.) IMHO it's absolutely crucial to fix some really basic issues
concerning jBPM 4.3 and release 4.4. This is important to not lose the
community. There's also a great insecurity about jBPM 4.x. To be more
precise: whether or not you should start a project wiht jBPM 4.3 right
now. Wide usage by the community is the best test you can get for a
software product.
In general the overall looks nice but there should be priority on the
core engine since all the other components can still be added later on
with no problem.
P.S.: For those who don't know what I am talking about:
https://community.jboss.org/wiki/jBPM5RequestforComments
Cheers and have a nice weekend
Sebastian
--
Sebastian Schneider
e-mail: Sebastian.Schneider(a)alumni.fh-aachen.de
3:09 p.m.
Sebastian Schneider wrote:
1.) Will jBPM 5.0 be based upon jBPM 4.x? You mention the PVM and the
native BPMN 2.0-implementation. So I assume it will be. Am I right?
jBPM 5.0 will be based on a combination of jBPM 4.x and Drools Flow,
like "the best of both worlds". So it will be based on jBPM 4.x and
Drools Flow. We haven't decided yet which bits and pieces exactly will
be used in jBPM5.
2.) What's the reason for replacing the task management with
WS-Human
Task?
The number one reason is simple: WS-HT is a standard. And many people
have thought a lot about this problem, and decided that they believe
this is the best solution.
The task life cycle model?
The task life cycle model and
features related to that are much more
advanced, while you can still have a simple task life cycle if you
want. I don't you will lose any functionality here.
Will this be implemented as a webservice as most of the other vendors
do or will you supply a java
implementation using the same model?
Current plans are to implement it as a java
service (if you for example
like close integration with the process engine), but also provide a WS
interface for it.
3.) Will JBoss ESB be an optional component? I am thinking of
embeddability again. Why use an ESB when you don't need one? One of the
strengths of jBPM IMHO is the small footprint.
Yes, while the core engine could be deployed as a service on the ESB,
the ESB will not become a dependency. The footprint of the core engine
itself will be (remain) small.
4.) IMHO it's absolutely crucial to fix some really basic issues
concerning jBPM 4.3 and release 4.4. This is important to not lose the
community. There's also a great insecurity about jBPM 4.x. To be more
precise: whether or not you should start a project wiht jBPM 4.3 right
now. Wide usage by the community is the best test you can get for a
software product.
This request for comments is about jBPM5, because we believe the
features we are presenting here are (sometimes) big steps forwards and
we want to target them in a new major release. I think this is just how
a lot of open-source projects are doing this: at some point you need to
decide whether you just keep adding functionality as a minor enhancement
to the existing version or whether you start focusing on the next
version. We believe that the features we are presenting (like for
example BPMN2 execution) can best be implemented as part of the next
version and not a simple add-on to the current.
This however does not necessarily mean that jBPM 4.x is "finished". We
know there are some issues that need to be dealt with (where some of
them have even been solved in the latest snapshot code already), and
we're also looking into that. Community involvement here is definitely
welcome, so please drop me a message if you want to help out. What it
does mean however, is that, for new features, we are changing our focus
to the next release.
In general the overall looks nice but there should be priority on the
core engine since all the other components can still be added later on
with no problem.
Thank you for your feedback, we'll definitely take it into account.
Kris
5655
days inactive
5658
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Kris Verlaenen -
Sebastian Schneider