[jboss-user] [jBPM] - jPDL vs. another process definition language

Bernd Ruecker do-not-reply at jboss.com
Tue Mar 23 08:20:32 EDT 2010

Bernd Ruecker [http://community.jboss.org/people/camunda] replied to the discussion

"jPDL vs. another process definition language"

To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/533468#533468

Hi Rudolf.

I think it is not a good idea to design your own language. jPDL should be capable to catch all your requirements. And jBPM 3 has even a more  language possibilities than jPDL 4 by now. I haven't seen much requirements it could not implement.

For BPMN 2.0: That's the way to go for the future. But at the moment the engines are not yet far enough in my eyes. Definitely interessting, and if you have some time bevore you have to go live, than I would consider this option.

And even XPDL would be a better choice than an own language.

If you are Geman speaking you can find some more oppinions from me on that here:  http://www.bpm-guide.de/2009/08/02/bauen-wir-uns-eine-bpmn-20-engine/ http://www.bpm-guide.de/2009/08/02/bauen-wir-uns-eine-bpmn-20-engine/



Reply to this message by going to Community

Start a new discussion in jBPM at Community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-user/attachments/20100323/15fd1cd4/attachment.html 

More information about the jboss-user mailing list