Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Eclipse Projects » Service Oriented Architecture Tools Platform (STP) » Re: [stp-newsgroup] Open letter to STP regarding BPEL and other verticals, from the Eclipse BPEL Des
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 Go to next message
Daniel Berg is currently offline Daniel BergFriend
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"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi Kevin,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I am forwarding your note to the stp-dev
list as well.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I want to thank Kevin for posting this
note to the group. &nbsp;This is an important point that we need to close
on quickly. &nbsp;I completely agree with Kevin that STP is a platform
for other projects to extend their contributions. &nbsp;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).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I highly suggest that we take Kevin's
proposal and run with it.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,<br>
Dan<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Kevin McGuire &lt;kevin_mcguire@ca.ibm.com&gt;</b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: stp-newsgroup-bounces@eclipse.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">03/09/2006 03:29 PM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
&quot;Gateway between eclipse.stp and stp-newsgroup&quot;</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td valign=top>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[stp-newsgroup] Open letter
to STP regarding BPEL and other verticals, from the Eclipse BPEL Designer
team</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Hi folks,<br>
<br>
We (Eclipse BPEL Designer) are somewhat confused about the STP strategy
<br>
around BPEL.<br>
<br>
Our understanding is that the STP project's goal is to provide an SOA <br>
framework which verticals can plug into.<br>
<br>
So why is STP doing java gen of BPEL models and BPMN tooling? &nbsp;These
are <br>
verticals.<br>
<br>
This approach competes with the Eclipse BPEL open source project <br>
(http://www.eclipse.org/bpel/, proposal at <br>
http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/bpel-designer/). &nbsp;This situation
is not <br>
in the best interest of the Eclipse community because we are splitting
<br>
our efforts across two models, two UIs, etc.<br>
<br>
---Why write your own BPEL component?---<br>
<br>
We can understand that there isn't much point having an SOA platform <br>
without some way of choreographing the services. &nbsp;Given that STP <br>
predates the BPEL project, we could understand why rolling your own BPEL
<br>
model and editor seemed at the time like a necessary step. &nbsp;However,
we <br>
do now have a BPEL open source project, and we'd be happy to see its <br>
integration into an STP environment.<br>
<br>
BPEL aside, we think there is a larger concern with STP rolling its own
<br>
choreography and service components. &nbsp;There are a number of programming
<br>
languages and metaphors which can be used for the choreography of <br>
services. For example, if someone were to come along with a different <br>
open source choreography service, say based on state machines, one would
<br>
not expect it to be hosted as subproject of STP. &nbsp;If you include BPEL,
<br>
you should include other services as well, yet clearly STP can't become
<br>
&quot;the place for all interesting web services&quot;. &nbsp; Doing so
weakens the <br>
notion of STP as a platform.<br>
<br>
STP should be exactly what the &quot;P&quot; &nbsp;stands for -- a platform.
&nbsp;It should <br>
not be in the business of providing vertical applications which will by
<br>
their nature compete with other efforts either underway or future. A <br>
clear delineation is required between framework with *supporting* <br>
tooling and vertical applications in order to create a healthy ecosystem
<br>
for the development of innovative service choreography components.<br>
<br>
Instead, it seems our efforts would be better spent on the integration
<br>
glue for the BPEL open source component to live in an STP environment.<br>
<br>
---Java Gen of BPEL?---<br>
<br>
In order to support Java gen of BPEL, you will need a model. &nbsp;The
<br>
Eclipse open source BPEL project already has a product quality model, <br>
one which has been vetted through the rigors of being shipped in <br>
WebSphere Integration Developer 6.0. &nbsp;To not use that means you will
<br>
need to develop and support your own model (with presumably BPMN tooling
<br>
as the visual language). &nbsp;As we already have a model, that seems a
waste <br>
of effort.<br>
<br>
Instead, wouldn't it be a better use of our collective resources to Java
<br>
gen the eclipse BPEL model? &nbsp;We would be very open to this and would
be <br>
happy to host this effort.<br>
<br>
--- Why BPMN? ---<br>
<br>
There is nothing I can see from the STP charter that motivates BPMN as
<br>
the preferred visual expression of BPEL processes. &nbsp;BPMN just happens
to <br>
be one way of visualizing BPEL flows. &nbsp;This visualization seems <br>
orthogonal to STP as a platform.<br>
<br>
---Summary---<br>
<br>
I see there has been discussion on this general topic in the thread:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/stp-dev/msg00005.html<br>
but the answer to me was not clear (the answer seeming to be, &quot;Yes
its <br>
ok we have our own BPEL but sure others can join as subprojects&quot;).
<br>
There is at its heart here a very basic question of whether STP should
<br>
be creating its own vertical components such as BPEL engines/editors.<br>
<br>
The counter proposal on the table is one of combined forces, where:<br>
1) The Eclipse BPEL component becomes a client of STP platform APIs, and<br>
2) The B2J work be written against the Eclipse BPEL model.<br>
<br>
We believe this approach is the most beneficial to both projects and <br>
more importantly the community at large. We would be happy to host the
<br>
STP extension effort for our BPEL engine.<br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
Kevin McGuire (IBM), Eclipse BPEL Designer co-lead<br>
Michal Chmielewski (Oracle), Eclipse BPEL Designer co-lead<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
stp-newsgroup mailing list<br>
stp-newsgroup@eclipse.org<br>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-newsgroup<br>
</tt></font>
<br>
--=_alternative 00108E4D8525712D_=--
Re: [stp-newsgroup] Open letter to STP regarding BPEL and other verticals, from the Eclipse BPEL Des [message #575879 is a reply to message #373957] Tue, 04 April 2006 18:30 Go to previous message
Anurag Gupta is currently offline Anurag GuptaFriend
Messages: 9
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
What was the outcome of the STP and BPEL discussion? Could someone please
summarize?

Thanks
Anurag
Previous Topic:STP BOF at EclipseCon 22 March
Next Topic:[stp-newsgroup] Phil Coulthard/Toronto/IBM is out of the office
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Nov 26 23:30:45 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.09190 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software