|Réf. : Re: AW: AW: [jwt-dev] [architecture] JWT and the Process VirtualMachine|
Hi Marc, Florian, and others ! I'm just getting back from some days of vactions and I realised now (checking my mailbox) that everybody is talking about the Process Virtual Machine now :-) I'm convinced that the PVM concepts we are pushing with Tom can be extrapolated to the graphical layer as well. This is in fact what I expected from the JWT project. However i'm not sure (specially after reading the last messages echanged on the list) that we are all sharing the same ideas on what JWT must be. Hereafter the main points I see for the modeling part of JWT: - A common meta-model which is as generic as possible to support multiple process languages (this would be the PVM applied to the graphical layer and based on EMF technologies). This model should, at least, allow the generation of targeted process languages (let's say XPDL, BPEL, JPDL,... ?) in fact the ones supported by the JWT partners. After the first evaluation made by Steve Egbert on the AgilPro model i'm not sure that we could easily extend it to support XPDL, BPEL or JPDL generation so I think this is probably one of the main issues to address by the JWT partners ??? - A generic plugin based on a graphical notation (let's say BPMN) with basic fonctionalities to design process and which could be extensible. For sure this plugin relies on the EMF model defined. - Graphical plugins extentions to the previous one fitting with the process languages to be supported (XPDL, BPEL, JPDL ...). As Tom pointed out, I see the user selecting up front the language for which he wants to start a process definition. I really think that we must avoid things like users switching between views and generations in which different standards are involved (i.e from an XPDL view to a BPEL one). I really don't like the approach for BPM tooling in which from a graphical notation and a particular process definition, the tool propose the generation of multiple languages definitions. This end up with a tedious work checking whether or not a particular process construct can be expressed by two different process languages as well as bidirectional mappings. - From the previous assumption I even see interesting (as explained by Florian) the possibility to refine a process definition including more technical details (two different views of the same process definition). I see that usefull ONLY in a particular use case: if the selected process language and graphical notation for both views are the same i.e: the user selects the XPDL definition (using the BPMN-XPDL view) and starts the process definition by only defining basic content. At some point, another user takes this same process definition but using the advanced view (BPMN-XPDL advanced view) in which he has access to the list of services/actions available. In fact, in this example, the second view is an extention of the first one with additional fonctionalities. best regards, Miguel Valdes BPM 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: miguel.valdes-faura@xxxxxxxx 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.
Back to the top