[jbpm-dev] jBPM5 Request for Comments - feedback

[Sebastian Schneider]

Hello Mauricio, hello Maciej, hello folks

Am 17.04.2010 14:37, schrieb Mauricio Salatino:
> It looks really good. I'm agree to put BPMN2 as default modeling
> language. Other languages as jPDL and RuleFlow can be supported as well
> but the focus needs to be on BPMN2.

I have to say that I partly disagree here. In general the focus should 
be on BPMN-2.0 but to enable users to have a smooth transition at the 
beginning jPDL should have the same priority. It would provide a much 
easier migration from previous engines. This again leads to the 
question: How far will jBPM 5 be based upon jBPM 4.x.

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:17 PM, <swiderski.maciej at gmail.com
> <mailto:swiderski.maciej at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     first of all - I am glad to see some formal activities around jBPM.
>
>     I would like to suggest to put some focus as well on authorization
>     that should provide at least some basic option to restrict access to
>     selected processes to users with granted roles, etc.

IMHO it should also be possible to leave authorization to the 
application - for the reason of embeddability. So maybe this should be 
configurable and pluggable. Anyway in contrast to the jBPM 4.x right 
now, it should be possible to pass the username to engine when invoking 
operations on the API. A common use case is the "process owner" - the 
guy who started the process but also for reasons of audit and 
traceability: who performed which action on the engine. I don't what 
kind of support is existent in jBPM 3.2.

>
>     There was mentioned that jBPM 5 will have WSHT - does it mean it
>     will provide extensive support for web services? Currently it is not
>     there and I think Riftsaw is dedicated for Web Service orchestration
>     (BPEL). How jBPM will fit into that?!

I understand this in the following way: a BPEL engine should fit in the 
overall architecture - kind of pluggable - but jBPM should not execute 
BPEL processes itself. However from the PVM's point of view this is 
possible. Since it will be a BPMN-2.0 there will be webservice support 
regarding service tasks since webservice calls are the only service 
calls standarized by the BPMN 2.0 specification.

Regards
Sebastian

-- 
Sebastian Schneider
e-mail: Sebastian.Schneider at alumni.fh-aachen.de