Re: [rules-users] Drools flow and BPEL (Drools 5.0.0.M5)

Mark Proctor wrote: > Umesh Wankhede wrote: > >> >> >> Mark Proctor wrote: >> >>> Umesh Wankhede wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I am trying to evaluate various features (rules and workflow) of Drools >>>> 5.0. What I understand from docs (drools-docs-flow.pdf - page 5) is that the >>>> Drools flow engine is based on generic process engine that allows the >>>> execution of different process languages like RuleFlow, BPEL, OSWorkflow, >>>> etc. Although I am able to do PoC (Proof of Concept) with RuleFlow, there >>>> isn't any documentation/samples available for using BPEL as process >>>> language. Also I don't find any more information on blogs, etc. >>>> If anyone has done something similar, please let me know, or any >>>> pointers would help. >>>> >>> There is no BPEL product, Drools COULD do BPEL, but we haven't made it >>> do so yet. It is more likely we would look to integrate an existing BPEL >>> product like ODE, as the execution engine is the easy bit, it's all the xml >>> manipulations that are time consuming. >>> >> So that means I would have to go with jBPM for BPEL support (and losing >> the advantage of tight rule engine integration provided in Drools). How far >> would be the BPEL support in Drools in the roadmap? >> > If you are going to use BPEL I would recommend ODE, jBPM BPEL is not BPEL > 2.0, but 1.0, which is very limited. ODE is likely to be the BPEL engine we > integrated into Drools. > > More importantly though, have a good think on why it is you are using > BPEL, as in reality it's generally too low level for end users to use > effectively. > The primary language would be RuleFlow or jPDL, but we are also looking at BPEL support (product requirements driven). So we have to make a choice between jBPM or Drools 5.0. The latter option looks more suitable for our requirement which provides tightly integrated rule support, but lack of BPEL support currently is making the decision tougher. >>>> Thanks >>>> Umesh >>>> >>>> >>>> Legal Notice: This transmission, including any attachments, is >>>> confidential, proprietary, and may be privileged. It is intended solely for >>>> the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you have >>>> received this transmission in error and you are hereby advised that any >>>> review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this transmission, >>>> or any of the information included therein, is unauthorized and strictly >>>> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please >>>> immediately notify the sender by reply and permanently delete all copies of >>>> this transmission and its attachments >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rules-users mailing list >>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-users mailing list >>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users