anonymous wrote : I regret that the drools guys put so much effort in duplication. We have
had a couple of meetings on this topic. But we couldn't come to a joint PVM strategy
yet. Hopefully that will still happen.
The Drools team has always been asking for collaboration with the jBPM team from the
start. We presented specific recommendations on how to improve the design of a the current
jBPM PVM model in several areas, more than a year ago. We also suggested broadening the
scope to make it not process-centric but knowledge-centric, allowing unification and a
tight integration (and still loosely-coupled as well of course) between rules and
processes.
What you call duplication (and we consider improvement !) was the only option to move
forward at that point. The Drools team will continue to actively add new exciting
features to the Drools Flow engine. We believe that at this point we already offer most
of the features supported by the jBPM engine (and much more), using a superior design.
But we hope the jBPM team would reconsider collaborating with us and we are still open for
any type of discussion and collaboration, as it'll allow us to combine our strengths
and resources in the most efficient way ...
anonymous wrote : One of the main things I don't see [in Drools Flow] yet is the whole
persistence and support of long running processes.
Drools Flow does offer persistence of your runtime process state, by providing JPA-based
persistence of process instances, adding support for long-living processes as well.
Kris
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4184282#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...