[jbpm-dev] jBPM5 Request for Comments - feedback

[Kris Verlaenen]

Sebastian Schneider wrote:
> I am getting the idea and there's nothing wrong about it from my point 
> of view - for the right use cases. IMHO there should be separation of 
> the APIs for processes and rules. Imagine use cases where you just want 
> a process engine with a small footprint but you don't need Drools 
> because your own application takes the place of it (to make business 
> decisions) or in situations where you want or you have to use a 
> different external rules engine and repository - maybe even an 
> enterprise-wide repository.
>   
I completely agree.  If you only want a workflow engine, you should be 
able to use only that.  Same if you only want a rules engine.  And 
sometimes you want both, tightly integrated.  So separation and 
modularization are definitely a goal.  However, so are integration, 
unification and harmonization.  With unification I mean making sure that 
similar services can be reused (a repository for processes, is it really 
different from a repository for rules? don't we need to unify those, so 
you don't need two different versions of something that basically does 
the same).  Harmonization makes sure that, even though you might want to 
separate APIs, you still might want to have similar APIs and tooling 
(e.g. to start a session, or to attach listeners, etc.).

By doing so, you still leave it up to the user to select what he needs.

Kris