|
| Re: Welcome to eclipse.technology.jwt! [message #1486 is a reply to message #1438] |
Wed, 14 September 2005 11:49   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: fabrice.dewasmes.openwide.fr
Here under is a mail from Michal Chmielewski, proposed Project Lead for
BPEL designer technology proposal. We had an email in which we were
wondering about possible synergies between BPEL designer and JWT. My
replies are below.
> Hello Fabrice,
>
> Just got back from vacation ...
>
> I read your JWT proposal. Looks interesting. Definitately some cross
> over where we could have a meeting of the minds :-) I am all for beg
> borrow and steal, you know, human nature :-)
>
> My concern up front is that various workflow standards have their own
> set of "tools" or "hooks" that they play with. For example, for BPEL
> it is WS and XML type systems and XPath (or whatever language is
> used). So these would have to be first class players in the puzzle
> that will become the designer. And I am not sure how well that can be
> done. Because you are after all proposing to built an infrastrucutre
> on which "workflow" type of designers could be built (BPEL being one
> of them).
You're perfectly right. This is true that BPEL and XPDL approaches are
not the same. I had a discussion on this topic with Alfred Madl at
Together and he said that of course there are no existing, standard,
generic workflow APIs. So they had to develop one. I'm all for it. But
the difficulty here is to find what are the common set of
functionalities workflow process definitions and workflow engine share.
Did you have a look to commons-workflow at jakarta ?
(http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/workflow/). Some guys have
begun something that could serve our purpose. Could you throw an eye and
tell me how you think this could be interesting in the case of BPEL ?
Our concrete road map is to do at first everything for XPDL designer and
engine. This way, things will be more concrete in our minds. I guess you
can do the same within the BPEL Designer project. At that point it would
be interesting to confront both expertise and try to define what could
be the generic part of all this. I like pragmatic and incremental ways
to build things and for me this could be the best way to go.
>
> I'll point the interested parties in the BPEL propsoal to look at
> yours and we'll pick it then. In the meantime, if you want to talk or
> e-mail please don't hesitate.
>
> -michal
>
regards,
Fabrice
--
Fabrice Dewasmes
Responsable du domaine urbanisation des systèmes d'information
fabrice.dewasmes@openwide.fr
06.89.88.65.37
--
Open Wide
14 rue Gaillon
75002 PARIS
www.openwide.fr
|
|
|
| BPEL Designer and JWT Synergies [message #1498 is a reply to message #1486] |
Wed, 14 September 2005 11:50 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: fabrice.dewasmes.openwide.fr
Here under is a mail from Michal Chmielewski, proposed Project Lead for
BPEL designer technology proposal. We had an email in which we were
wondering about possible synergies between BPEL designer and JWT. My
replies are below.
> Hello Fabrice,
>
> Just got back from vacation ...
>
> I read your JWT proposal. Looks interesting. Definitately some cross
> over where we could have a meeting of the minds :-) I am all for beg
> borrow and steal, you know, human nature :-)
>
> My concern up front is that various workflow standards have their own
> set of "tools" or "hooks" that they play with. For example, for BPEL
> it is WS and XML type systems and XPath (or whatever language is
> used). So these would have to be first class players in the puzzle
> that will become the designer. And I am not sure how well that can be
> done. Because you are after all proposing to built an infrastrucutre
> on which "workflow" type of designers could be built (BPEL being one
> of them).
You're perfectly right. This is true that BPEL and XPDL approaches are
not the same. I had a discussion on this topic with Alfred Madl at
Together and he said that of course there are no existing, standard,
generic workflow APIs. So they had to develop one. I'm all for it. But
the difficulty here is to find what are the common set of
functionalities workflow process definitions and workflow engine share.
Did you have a look to commons-workflow at jakarta ?
(http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/workflow/). Some guys have
begun something that could serve our purpose. Could you throw an eye and
tell me how you think this could be interesting in the case of BPEL ?
Our concrete road map is to do at first everything for XPDL designer and
engine. This way, things will be more concrete in our minds. I guess you
can do the same within the BPEL Designer project. At that point it would
be interesting to confront both expertise and try to define what could
be the generic part of all this. I like pragmatic and incremental ways
to build things and for me this could be the best way to go.
>
> I'll point the interested parties in the BPEL propsoal to look at
> yours and we'll pick it then. In the meantime, if you want to talk or
> e-mail please don't hesitate.
>
> -michal
>
regards,
Fabrice
--
Fabrice Dewasmes
Responsable du domaine urbanisation des systèmes d'information
fabrice.dewasmes@openwide.fr
06.89.88.65.37
--
Open Wide
14 rue Gaillon
75002 PARIS
www.openwide.fr
|
|
|
| Re: BPEL Designer and JWT Synergies [message #1512 is a reply to message #1498] |
Fri, 07 October 2005 19:13 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Fabrice Dewasmes wrote:
>
> You're perfectly right. This is true that BPEL and XPDL approaches are
> not the same. I had a discussion on this topic with Alfred Madl at
> Together and he said that of course there are no existing, standard,
> generic workflow APIs. So they had to develop one. I'm all for it. But
> the difficulty here is to find what are the common set of
> functionalities workflow process definitions and workflow engine share.
> Did you have a look to commons-workflow at jakarta ?
> (http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/workflow/). Some guys have
> begun something that could serve our purpose. Could you throw an eye and
> tell me how you think this could be interesting in the case of BPEL ?
Looks like these guys wanna write something that will "glue" existing
"applications" or "components" into "workflow" but specifically within
the Java platform. They are talking about "XML scripts" to provide that
"glue". A side comment here, but could 'ant' be considered such a tool
already ?
It's hard to say how realistic is a workflow "base" system from which
other "like" systems could be built.
Take for example the expression language XPath 1.0 used in BPEL by
default. Doing a JavaScript aware implementation would require certain
assumptions of access to nodes/data and it will allow full semantics of
JavaScript. During such implementation it might become apparent that
exposing a generic activity that is simply javascript code might be
useful. We are certainly guilty of a similar crime by exposing a java
exec activity in the Oracle BPEL Process Manager (it is a little hard to
duplicate that on a non-java server). My point is here is that every
technology that you bring into the puzzle has some context that might be
badly used.
If the assumption is that there is some underlying "workflow" model that
can be built independently of implemenation and semantics of the
workflow "kind" (BPEL or XPDL or Commons Workflow) then some discussion
must be made around what types of semantics would that "base" layer
have. Would that involve loops/control structures ? If so, are there any
languages that would be useful for binding ? What about variables used
in expressions (for say conditions, loops) ? What is their semantic
model ? The only thing that I am aware of that works ok in cross
language environments is interface based (contract based) programming
(IDL, COM, XPConnect, etc). But even there, there are some elementary
stakes in the ground regarding data types and no "expression" component.
> Our concrete road map is to do at first everything for XPDL designer and
> engine. This way, things will be more concrete in our minds. I guess you
> can do the same within the BPEL Designer project. At that point it would
> be interesting to confront both expertise and try to define what could
> be the generic part of all this. I like pragmatic and incremental ways
> to build things and for me this could be the best way to go.
>
> >
> > I'll point the interested parties in the BPEL propsoal to look at
> > yours and we'll pick it then. In the meantime, if you want to talk or
> > e-mail please don't hesitate.
> >
> > -michal
> >
> regards,
>
> Fabrice
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: BPEL Designer and JWT Synergies [message #1650 is a reply to message #1615] |
Fri, 23 December 2005 15:47 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: fabrice.dewasmes.openwide.fr
Michael N. Lipp wrote:
>> You're perfectly right. This is true that BPEL and XPDL approaches are
>> not the same. I had a discussion on this topic with Alfred Madl at
>> Together and he said that of course there are no existing, standard,
>> generic workflow APIs. So they had to develop one. I'm all for it. But
> Though this is a bit off topic, I'd like to correct this. There is a
> standard from the OMG. I happen to know because we have used it as a
> basis for our engine (http://wfmopen.sf.net), but others have used it, too.
> Regards,
Yes it really helps I didn't know about this API. I'll throw an eye on it.
Thank you for this valuable information !
Best regards,
Fabrice
> Michael
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.05350 seconds
Home
