[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
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 Lautenbacher
Programming Distributed Systems Lab
Institute of Computer Science
University of Augsburg
Universitätsstr. 14
86135 Augsburg, Germany
phone: +49 821 598-3103
fax: +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,
Brian
Brian 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
