[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Defining the API Mission

[tom.baeyens@jboss.com]

"heiko.braun at jboss.com" wrote : anonymous wrote : 
  |   | The mismatch in naming of workflow elements is nearly as bad as it can get...
  |   | 
  | 
  | I totally agree with this. This was the reason for  looking at BPMN in the first place. We wanted to get to "proven concepts" with "established terminology". 
  | 

BPMN is not a proven concept.  Look at the discussions around BPMN 2.0 and you'll see that the future if far from clear or stable.  Second, it is a analysis modelling notation with focus on the business analyst.  For the terminology part, that is not a good basis for an executable process language.  

I agree with Ed's comment later on that BPMN terminology is not a good basis for the API.

"heiko.braun at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | And to be honest, following the discussions around BPMN and executable dialects, I still don't see arguments why it can't be done. Please  show me  examples of BPMN elements that conflict with execution. 
  | 

Adding a runtime interpretation to BPMN modelling constructs is possible.  But by doing that, you would limit the use of BPMN for its original purpose: analysis modelling.  Because when all BPMN constructs have a runtime interpretation, that means that an analyst can not model freely any more.  When he/she draws a certain box, he/she has to be aware of the implications when this process is being executed on a computer system.  Which eventually will limit BPMN to graphical programming.

It is impossible to create an executable process language so that non tech analylsts can model in all freedom and which aftwards turns out to produce exactly the right software.  There must be a mapping between analysis and executable process language.  The easiest and most practical way to do this is by introducing a one-way translation between BPMN and jPDL.  That way  BPMN can keep its focus on being a modelling notation for non tech business analysts.  And jPDL can keep its focus on being an executable process language that developers can use to produce the same diagram as the analysis model.

"heiko.braun at jboss.com" wrote : 
  | IMO it's not necessary to have full BPMN support. We just need those parts that we actually can make executable. If I remember correctly BPMN even defines profiles with different scopes. But I think a 60% BPMN support is still better 100% jPDL, which is, by the way, something we cannot even easily compare at the moment, because jBPM doesn't use common BPM patterns and established terminology to express it's features/capabilities.

The market doesn't have proven concepts that we can just follow and implement.  Two years ago, BPEL was the well accepted standard for BPMN.  One year ago, BPMN came into the picture.  So everyone focussed on the impossible BPMN to BPEL mapping.  Now, as people realize BPEL is best suited for service orchestration, BPEL is starting to fade away as a solution for BPM.  Now, the battle for BPMN 2.0 shows that BPMN itself is not a proven concept.


There is only 1 product in the BPM area that I have great respect for.  IDS Scheer's ARIS.  They take the inverse perspective of us.  We start from an executable process language jPDL, and we try to bind it to the analysis world without compromise on the technical and executable side.  IDS Scheer has by far the most advanced modelling environment, and they only go as far to bind it to implementation details as they can without compromise on the analysis side.

All initiatives that try to combine both have been proven to be good only in a niche area.  There is no technology that binds the 2 automagically and is able to be more then a niche product.

@camunda: IDS Scheer has one of the best round tripping support out there.  E.g. they can create graphical diffs of analysis models and calculate the impacted parts in the related executable process.  But I think it does not fit our target.  As it takes a huge development effort.  And it also takes a great effort from to user to bind the analysis and implementation models and keep all of that in sync.  I think the latter is only suitable in the very top range of use cases.  I think that with a one-way translation from analylsis to implementation model, we can serve more then 90% of the use cases.

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4166788#4166788

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4166788