Home » Archived » Java WorkFlow Tooling (JWT) » Re: Collaboration in the JWT project
|Re: Collaboration in the JWT project [message #22888]
||Wed, 02 August 2006 09:34
| Marc Dutoo
Registered: July 2009
(NB. I'm publishing this on the eclipse news server as it is ok with you)
As for now, I'm sure we're really be able to do some productive work
together one way or another ;)
Some answers & ideas :
You're right, there is this idea of an implementation independant
"pivot" model. However, since XPDL is more comprehensive than BPEL and
our (I mean all the JWT partner)'s priority, it will actually be based
on XPDL (see message with Florian).
On your integration proposition :
JWT's goal is a fully integrated solution.
That doesn't prevent us to progress step by step and do a first "crude"
integration like the first one you delineate, it would even be a good
thing in my opinion.
A fully integrated solution's advantages would be that the tool's
developper users (I mean, users developing a technical platform with BPM
and eager to integrate JWT as its edition tool of choice) would be able
to propose to their business users not only a tool customized to their
specific business, but configurated (here's the "framework" idea) in
order that the output technical implementations of the edited workflows
would work with their specific technical platform. What business users
and technical users edit are not on the same level, but together with
these layers of configuration it should allow edition of "ready-to-use"
BP edition as seamless as possible. Actually, the idea is to "toolify or
frameworkize" every step of the BP production and execution process.
The choice of the first step will depend on a study of the code we've
got right now and on the open options. You've just provided an analysis
of yours, that will indeed be valuable in this context ! I think Florian
may have more things on the presentation level (but I didn't review it
for now) ; Open Wide provides a port of JaWE on swing ; and as far as I
know (!) the others are more monolithic. Well, this study calls for a
wiki as well ;)
Valdes Faura Miguel wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> No problem on my side if you want to publish our discussions on the
> Eclipse news server...
> I have been looking to the JWT proposal description as well as the
> last emails you have exchanged with Florian and I can say that we are
> really interested on this project.
> Otherwise, I have several questions from what I read so far. I hope
> you can help me with them:
> I like the idea of having multiple grammars and representations for a
> same process but I didn't understand pretty well the way in which
> JWT is going to support that. I guess that you have planned to use a
> kind of "pivot model", is that right ? In fact i'm wondering about the
> required steps for the developpers to add a new graphical
> representation as well as a new grammar...
> I'm also concerned about the way in which different BPM vendors (open
> source or not) could take benefit of JWT. Let me give you an example:
> In our case, Bull have already an XPDL based editor which is directly
> plugged to the Bonita workflow system, that means that even if the
> grammar is XPDL compliant the representation is Bonita oriented. Like
> in other XPDL compliant workflow engines, we have also defined some
> XPDL extended attributes to allow the end user to take benefit of some
> advanced features.
> Let imagine we use the JWT BPMN representation/view in order to define
> a workflow process. That way non technical people (let say analysts)
> are able to define a workflow process without having to deal with the
> XPDL or BPEL language. After that we want to generate the XPDL file
> associated to this BPMN representation and to allow the technical
> people to edit it using a XPDL editor in order to customize the
> process. In this context the easiest solution seems to be to just open
> the output XPDL file generated by JWT and edit it using our existing
> XPDL editor.
> The other possible solution I guess would be to add support for this
> particular XPDL editor as a new view in JWT so that will allow as to
> switch between the BPMN and this propietary XPDL based views and take
> benefit of the JWT environment, is this the intent ?
> Best regards,
> *Workflow Project Manager*
> *Bull, Architect of an Open World TM
> *1, rue de Provence
> 38130 Echirolles (France)
> ( Direct Line: +33-4-76-29-72-28
> ( Fax: +33-4-76-29-75-18
> ( Sec: +33-4-76-29-76-42
> + Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
> This e-mail contains material that is confidential for the sole use of
> the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others
> or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and
> delete all copies.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc Dutoo" <email@example.com
> To: "Valdes Faura Miguel" <MIGUEL.VALDES-FAURA@BULL.NET
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Collaboration in the JWT project
> > Hi Miguel
> > Well, in a nutshell I like what you write and your motivation to go
> > further !
> > It seems to me your approach at Bull is really in line with the
> > philosophy behind the JWT initiative, aka independance from the
> > representation model as well as from the engine language. On the
> > technical side, we're still in the process of choosing it (there are
> > interesting discussions on the JWT news server at eclipse's), but the
> > architecture you describe would be the most likely choice for now.
> > Therefore I think a collaboration would bear valuable fruits.
> > About JWT itself, I guess you've taken a look at the proposal home page
> > ( http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/jwt/ ). The JWT news server at
> > eclipse's contains some interesting further technical analysis. Open
> > Wide hosts the JWT forge and the partners' start contributions (
> > https://forge.openwide.fr/projects/jwt/ ).
> > You may have noted JWT is currently not as busy as it has been from
> > january to april. First because of the EclipseCon delaying our proposal
> > review for the Eclipse STP Project - on another (positive) side, the
> > Objectweb Consortium is still strongly backing us to get into STP. Then
> > because of JWT contributors being themselves quite busy - Fabrice (he's
> > changed company since then) and me for instance, but there are
> > improvements in this area :) Also because of a new opportunity to get
> > some funds from a European Research Program (the answer on this last
> > issue should be released next week). And finally we've just (july)
> > started an industry project with long term JWT interests.
> > That's why right now is the right time. The proposal is currently in
> > process of being updated before submission. You're obviously very much
> > welcome to contribute to the proposal. I'm sending some material
> > tomorrow that'll set a starting point for JWT contributors and new
> > partners. I hope we'll be able to set a few phone conference calls to
> > round it up and if everything goes well we expect the administrative
> > side to be done before september (Florian Lautenbacher would be ok with
> > that planning).
> > Finally, I like the visibility and simplicity offered by the eclipse
> > news server, so if it is ok with you, I'd like to submit all of our
> > discussions. Actually I've got some recent material from other partners
> > to post there as well...
> > Best regards
> > Marc Dutoo
> > Open Wide
> > 33 4 26 68 95 03
> > Valdes Faura Miguel wrote:
> >> Hi Marc,
> >> As discussed during the ObjectWeb meeting call, Bull is really
> >> interested on the high level BPM editors to address what we call a BPM
> >> development platform. The first step was to provide both BPEL and XPDL
> >> compliant engines so that has been achieved with the last release of
> >> Bonita 2.0 and the Orchestra 2.5.
> >> Both components includes a graphical editor which is BPEL or XPDL
> >> oriented. Time know to integrate both engines/editors under the same
> >> development platform. I guess that we agree that the base environment
> >> for this platform is the Eclipse IDE and the the graphical standard
> >> that will help us to define generic BPM processes could be BPMN .
> >> To me, the best would be to meet with you and your team around the
> >> potential collaboration on the JWT project you have started. What do
> >> you think ?
> >> Best regards,
> >> Miguel
> >> *Workflow Project Manager*
> >> **
> >> *Bull, Architect of an Open World TM*
> >> 1, rue de Provence
> >> 38130 Echirolles (France)
> >> ( Direct Line: +33-4-76-29-72-28
> >> ( Fax: +33-4-76-29-75-18
> >> ( Sec: +33-4-76-29-76-42
> >> + Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> <mailto:email@example.com>
> >> This e-mail contains material that is confidential for the sole use of
> >> the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others
> >> or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If
> >> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and
> >> delete all copies.
Current Time: Mon Dec 11 04:11:51 GMT 2023
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.01877 seconds