|Re: Fwd: [jwt-dev] AW: A question on Intermediate process models in JWT and STP|
Thanks Adrian. I obviously second that, and I like very much the way you put it : "There is certainly the need to synchronise the work in STP-IM and JWT and a first way of doing this is to provide model transformations between the two. As work advances on the two projects, it might be interesting to see if perhaps tighter synchronisation can be attained by using a common sub-model or core model.
"We should be able to work on putting this to the test by the end of january !
Best regards, Marc Adrian Mos wrote:
forwarded mail, did not go through the first time as I wasn't registered. Adrian.*From: *Adrian Mos <adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx <mailto:adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx>> *Date: *December 17, 2007 4:51:33 PM CEST*To: *Brian Carroll <BCarroll@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:BCarroll@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Java Workflow Toolbox <jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>> *Cc: *"Alain BOULZE (INRIA)" <alain.boulze@xxxxxxxx <mailto:alain.boulze@xxxxxxxx>>, Oisin Hurley <ohurley@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ohurley@xxxxxxxx>> *Subject: **Re: [jwt-dev] AW: A question on Intermediate process models in JWT and STP*Hi guys,So just to follow-up on this with a few words, the STP-IM is a pragmatic approach to bridging different editors and (in some cases) runtime platforms that the STP project addresses. To that end, the STP-IM contains several elements that can roughly be seen as the "intersection" between the different element sets of process/workflow editors (such as BPEL, BPMN) and architecture editors (SCA, JBI) as well as service editors (such as JAX-WS). The STP-IM does not really intend to offer a conceptual meta-model for SOA (or BPM), nor for different workflow platforms. It instead tries to facilitate the sharing of information between the different SOA-related editors of STP. It therefore makes the connection between things like processes and steps and the services and bindings and so on. I think JWT is aimed at the workflow world and tries to offer a a more complete framework for different workflow graphical representations and engines.There is certainly the need to synchronise the work in STP-IM and JWT and a first way of doing this is to provide model transformations between the two. As work advances on the two projects, it might be interesting to see if perhaps tighter synchronisation can be attained by using a common sub-model or core model.Best regards, Adrian. --------------- *Adrian Mos* ObjectWeb Project SOA Technical Lead adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx <mailto:adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx> +33 4 76 61 54 02 *INRIA Rhone-Alpes* 655 avenue de l'Europe - Montbonnot 38 334 Saint Ismier Cedex France On Dec 14, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Alain BOULZE (INRIA) wrote:Hi Florian and Brian,I forward to Adrian who is the leader of STP-IM et will sure give some feedback about your questions ... In a few days, as Adrian is currently at JavaPolis -;)Best regards, Alain -- Alain BOULZE INRIA Rhone-Alpes/ObjectWeb project SOA Project Coordinator alain.boulze at inria.fr tel.:+33 4 76 61 54 65 fax:+33 4 76 61 52 52 cel:+33 6 21 09 43 66 Le 12 déc. 07 à 11:44, Florian Lautenbacher a écrit :Hi Brian,here at JWT we are well aware of the current work in STP. Some of our contributors and project partners like Stéphane Drapeau (Obeo), Alain Boulze (INRIA) or (a little bit) Adrian Mos (INRIA) are also involved in STP or STP IM. Concerning the differences between JWT and STP IM: STP IM is a minimal set of elements that normally each kind of process model (whether specified in BPMN, SCA, JBI, etc.) uses: there are steps and transitions, conditions, attributes, etc. In JWT we have a similar set of minimal elements, however currently not synchronized with the STP IM. Additionally, we have several other elements, that are necessary to describe a business process (similar to BPMN). We are in the progress of discussing how the final STP IM should look like, but I can't say for sure that STP IM and JWT will converge in the end (there are always political issues ;-). In JWT we are already able to generate BPEL code (however, the code has not yet been submitted to Eclipse), but without having transformations to the STP IM. I fear that for the moment you need to have a look at both, the STP IM efforts as well as the JWT project. After the finalization of STP IM we will probably be able to say more about this. Best regards, Florian ---------------------------------------Dipl.-Inf. Florian LautenbacherProgramming Distributed Systems LabInstitute of Computer Science University of Augsburg Universitätsstr. 14 86135 Augsburg, Germanyphone: +49 821 598-3103fax: +49 821 598-2175------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Von:* Brian Carroll [mailto:BCarroll@xxxxxxxxxx] *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 09:51*An:* florian.lautenbacher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:florian.lautenbacher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Betreff:* A question on Intermediate process models in JWT and STP Hi Florian,I saw your presentation on JWT at ESE a couple of months ago. Have just heard Adrian Skehill of Iona talking about a similar topic in the STP (SOA Tools) project, I was curious:Are you aware of that work in STP? Are JWT approach and the IM for STP fundamentally different? Have you coordinated with STP to jointly develop a single model?I ask because ALF uses BPEL for orchestration and might be able to consume what the JWT is building. So I'm wondering, do I need to follow STP's process modeling work as well, or have the two projects been aware of each other's work, so I only need to be tracking the progress of one? Thanks in advance,BrianBrian Carroll | Eclipse ALF Project Lead | Serena Fellow (O) (503) 617-2436 (C) (503) 318-2017 The Mashups are coming! <http://www.serena.com/go/mashups-are-coming>**********************************************************************This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.**********************************************************************_______________________________________________jwt-dev mailing list jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ jwt-dev mailing list jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
Back to the top