Eclipse Community Forums: Service Oriented Architecture Tools Platform (STP) » Re: [stp-newsgroup] Open letter to STP regarding BPEL and other verticals, from the Eclipse BPEL Des

Home » Archived » Service Oriented Architecture Tools Platform (STP) » Re: [stp-newsgroup] Open letter to STP regarding BPEL and other verticals, from the Eclipse BPEL Des

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

Re: [stp-newsgroup] Open letter to STP regarding BPEL and other verticals, from the Eclipse BPEL Des [message #373957]

Fri, 10 March 2006 12:15

Daniel Berg

Messages: 19
Registered: July 2009

Junior Member

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 00108E4D8525712D_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Hi Kevin,

I am forwarding your note to the stp-dev list as well.

I want to thank Kevin for posting this note to the group. This is an
important point that we need to close on quickly. I completely agree with
Kevin that STP is a platform for other projects to extend their
contributions. We will have some contributions to show how it is done but
when there is clearly another project within Eclipse that defines the
implementation type we (STP) should not try to declare the contribution to
the platform for this type (e..g, BPEL).

I highly suggest that we take Kevin's proposal and run with it.

Regards,
Dan

Kevin McGuire <kevin_mcguire@ca.ibm.com>
Sent by: stp-newsgroup-bounces@eclipse.org
03/09/2006 03:29 PM
Please respond to
"Gateway between eclipse.stp and stp-newsgroup"

To
stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org
cc

Subject
[stp-newsgroup] Open letter to STP regarding BPEL and other verticals,
from the Eclipse BPEL Designer team

Hi folks,

We (Eclipse BPEL Designer) are somewhat confused about the STP strategy
around BPEL.

Our understanding is that the STP project's goal is to provide an SOA
framework which verticals can plug into.

So why is STP doing java gen of BPEL models and BPMN tooling? These are
verticals.

This approach competes with the Eclipse BPEL open source project
(http://www.eclipse.org/bpel/, proposal at
http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/bpel-designer/). This situation is not
in the best interest of the Eclipse community because we are splitting
our efforts across two models, two UIs, etc.

---Why write your own BPEL component?---

We can understand that there isn't much point having an SOA platform
without some way of choreographing the services. Given that STP
predates the BPEL project, we could understand why rolling your own BPEL
model and editor seemed at the time like a necessary step. However, we
do now have a BPEL open source project, and we'd be happy to see its
integration into an STP environment.

BPEL aside, we think there is a larger concern with STP rolling its own
choreography and service components. There are a number of programming
languages and metaphors which can be used for the choreography of
services. For example, if someone were to come along with a different
open source choreography service, say based on state machines, one would
not expect it to be hosted as subproject of STP. If you include BPEL,
you should include other services as well, yet clearly STP can't become
"the place for all interesting web services". Doing so weakens the
notion of STP as a platform.

STP should be exactly what the "P" stands for -- a platform. It should
not be in the business of providing vertical applications which will by
their nature compete with other efforts either underway or future. A
clear delineation is required between framework with *supporting*
tooling and vertical applications in order to create a healthy ecosystem
for the development of innovative service choreography components.

Instead, it seems our efforts would be better spent on the integration
glue for the BPEL open source component to live in an STP environment.

---Java Gen of BPEL?---

In order to support Java gen of BPEL, you will need a model. The
Eclipse open source BPEL project already has a product quality model,
one which has been vetted through the rigors of being shipped in
WebSphere Integration Developer 6.0. To not use that means you will
need to develop and support your own model (with presumably BPMN tooling
as the visual language). As we already have a model, that seems a waste
of effort.

Instead, wouldn't it be a better use of our collective resources to Java
gen the eclipse BPEL model? We would be very open to this and would be
happy to host this effort.

--- Why BPMN? ---

There is nothing I can see from the STP charter that motivates BPMN as
the preferred visual expression of BPEL processes. BPMN just happens to
be one way of visualizing BPEL flows. This visualization seems
orthogonal to STP as a platform.

---Summary---

I see there has been discussion on this general topic in the thread:

http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/stp-dev/msg00005.html
but the answer to me was not clear (the answer seeming to be, "Yes its
ok we have our own BPEL but sure others can join as subprojects").
There is at its heart here a very basic question of whether STP should
be creating its own vertical components such as BPEL engines/editors.

The counter proposal on the table is one of combined forces, where:
1) The Eclipse BPEL component becomes a client of STP platform APIs, and
2) The B2J work be written against the Eclipse BPEL model.

We believe this approach is the most beneficial to both projects and
more importantly the community at large. We would be happy to host the
STP extension effort for our BPEL engine.

Yours,
Kevin McGuire (IBM), Eclipse BPEL Designer co-lead
Michal Chmielewski (Oracle), Eclipse BPEL Designer co-lead
_______________________________________________
stp-newsgroup mailing list
stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-newsgroup

--=_alternative 00108E4D8525712D_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

 Hi Kevin,
 
 I am forwarding your note to the stp-dev
list as well.
 
 I want to thank Kevin for posting this
note to the group.  This is an important point that we need to close
on quickly.  I completely agree with Kevin that STP is a platform
for other projects to extend their contributions.  We will have some
contributions to show how it is done but when there is clearly another
project within Eclipse that defines the implementation type we (STP) should
not try to declare the contribution to the platform for this type (e..g,
BPEL).
 
 I highly suggest that we take Kevin's
proposal and run with it.
 
 Regards, 
Dan 

 
 
 
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%>Kevin McGuire <kevin_mcguire@ca.ibm.com>

 Sent by: stp-newsgroup-bounces@eclipse.org
03/09/2006 03:29 PM
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center>Please respond to 
"Gateway between eclipse.stp and stp-newsgroup"</div></table>
 
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right>To</div>
<td valign=top>stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right>cc</div>
<td valign=top>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right>Subject</div>
<td valign=top>[stp-newsgroup] Open letter
to STP regarding BPEL and other verticals, from the Eclipse BPEL Designer
team</table>
 
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
 </table>
 
 
 <tt>Hi folks, 
 
We (Eclipse BPEL Designer) are somewhat confused about the STP strategy
 
around BPEL. 
 
Our understanding is that the STP project's goal is to provide an SOA 
framework which verticals can plug into. 
 
So why is STP doing java gen of BPEL models and BPMN tooling?  These
are 
verticals. 
 
This approach competes with the Eclipse BPEL open source project 
(http://www.eclipse.org/bpel/, proposal at 
http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/bpel-designer/).  This situation
is not 
in the best interest of the Eclipse community because we are splitting
 
our efforts across two models, two UIs, etc. 
 
---Why write your own BPEL component?--- 
 
We can understand that there isn't much point having an SOA platform 
without some way of choreographing the services.  Given that STP 
predates the BPEL project, we could understand why rolling your own BPEL
 
model and editor seemed at the time like a necessary step.  However,
we 
do now have a BPEL open source project, and we'd be happy to see its 
integration into an STP environment. 
 
BPEL aside, we think there is a larger concern with STP rolling its own
 
choreography and service components.  There are a number of programming
 
languages and metaphors which can be used for the choreography of 
services. For example, if someone were to come along with a different 
open source choreography service, say based on state machines, one would
 
not expect it to be hosted as subproject of STP.  If you include BPEL,
 
you should include other services as well, yet clearly STP can't become
 
"the place for all interesting web services".   Doing so
weakens the 
notion of STP as a platform. 
 
STP should be exactly what the "P"  stands for -- a platform.
 It should 
not be in the business of providing vertical applications which will by
 
their nature compete with other efforts either underway or future. A 
clear delineation is required between framework with *supporting* 
tooling and vertical applications in order to create a healthy ecosystem
 
for the development of innovative service choreography components. 
 
Instead, it seems our efforts would be better spent on the integration
 
glue for the BPEL open source component to live in an STP environment. 
 
---Java Gen of BPEL?--- 
 
In order to support Java gen of BPEL, you will need a model.  The
 
Eclipse open source BPEL project already has a product quality model, 
one which has been vetted through the rigors of being shipped in 
WebSphere Integration Developer 6.0.  To not use that means you will
 
need to develop and support your own model (with presumably BPMN tooling
 
as the visual language).  As we already have a model, that seems a
waste 
of effort. 
 
Instead, wouldn't it be a better use of our collective resources to Java
 
gen the eclipse BPEL model?  We would be very open to this and would
be 
happy to host this effort. 
 
--- Why BPMN? --- 
 
There is nothing I can see from the STP charter that motivates BPMN as
 
the preferred visual expression of BPEL processes.  BPMN just happens
to 
be one way of visualizing BPEL flows.  This visualization seems 
orthogonal to STP as a platform. 
 
---Summary--- 
 
I see there has been discussion on this general topic in the thread: 
               
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/stp-dev/msg00005.html 
but the answer to me was not clear (the answer seeming to be, "Yes
its 
ok we have our own BPEL but sure others can join as subprojects").
 
There is at its heart here a very basic question of whether STP should
 
be creating its own vertical components such as BPEL engines/editors. 
 
The counter proposal on the table is one of combined forces, where: 
1) The Eclipse BPEL component becomes a client of STP platform APIs, and 
2) The B2J work be written against the Eclipse BPEL model. 
 
We believe this approach is the most beneficial to both projects and 
more importantly the community at large. We would be happy to host the
 
STP extension effort for our BPEL engine. 
 
Yours, 
Kevin McGuire (IBM), Eclipse BPEL Designer co-lead 
Michal Chmielewski (Oracle), Eclipse BPEL Designer co-lead 
_______________________________________________ 
stp-newsgroup mailing list 
stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org 
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-newsgroup 
</tt>
 
--=_alternative 00108E4D8525712D_=--

Report message to a moderator