|[XPDL] Version? [message #25460]
||Tue, 03 April 2007 00:17
Originally posted by: steve.egbert.bull.com|
I have undertaken to address the metamodel - XPDL issue.
As a jumping off point, I have installed AgilPro and am trying to figure out
how to use it to model the kinds of concepts I am familiar with modeling in
ProEd, (XPDL 1), and will report back here.
Toward this end, I have just finished reading the XPDL 2.0 specification. I
note that it is significantly more elaborate than 1.0. It adds the Pool and
Swimlane elaments, Messages, and includes graphical metadata and a lot of
additional application specifications, to mention a few.
At this point, which version of XPDL are we targeting?
|Re: [XPDL] Version? [message #25894 is a reply to message #25541]
||Thu, 12 April 2007 09:42
| Wojciech Zurek
Registered: July 2009
It is true, that XPDL 1 is a subset of XPDL 2, but...
On the level of activities and transitions it is very similar, but in terms
of details it is very different. We started Business Studio with XPDL1, and
the hat to nearly completely rewrite it for XPDL2. The compatibility is on
the schema level only; the interpretation is different... unfortunately. Not
many things have changed, but new features changed the way how you model the
processes in XPDL2. Mapping to XPDL1 will be completely different then
mapping to XPDL2.
The XPDL2 introduce a lot of features that allows very seamless mapping
to/from BPMN, without bending the rules and adding proprietary extensions as
it was required in XPDL1. In many terms it will be easier to do mapping
to/from XPDL2 as it is using more similar vocabulary to BPMN and even BPEL.
I can recommend focusing on subset of XPDL2, not on XPDL1, as we had to
throw away a lot of the code for XPDL1 when we moved to XPDL2 in TIBCO.
"Marc Dutoo" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> Hi Steve
> If I'm not mistaken, XPDL 2 is backward compatible with 1 meaning 1 is a
> subset. Therefore a safe guess would be targeting XPDL 1 in a first time
> and enhancing with the XPDL 2 features that are the most useful to our
> goals. Though obvioulsy having an XPDL 2 mapping would be a killer
> Wojciech, what is your opinion ?
> Marc Dutoo
> Open Wide
> Florian Lautenbacher wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>> my guess is that we will target the latest stable version of XPDL,
>> meaning XPDL 2. But I'm not an expert in this area as my focus has been
>> more on generation of BPEL code (version 1.1 or 2.0) and I am looking
>> forward to the comments of e.g. the colleagues from TIBCO who are more
>> familiar with XPDL version 2.
>> Best regards,
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.01747 seconds