[jwt-dev] Re: AW: Components in JWT

[Marc Dutoo <marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Florian

Great, I like this new CVS layout !
I'm currently trying to gather my thoughts about how to ensure 
consistency across transformation specific extension / annotations / 
properties... stay tuned.

Regards
Marc

Florian Lautenbacher wrote:

> Hi Marc, hi all,
>
> concerning the components in JWT and in CVS: after having a longer
> discussion with the webmaster of Eclipse he enabled my console to log into
> CVS, so I have now been able to create the directories you proposed in your
> last mail. So we can host most of our code on the Eclipse CVS which I would
> prefer to using again an external server where nobody can see what we are
> actually working on.
>
> So there are now the following directories on dev.eclipse.org
> (/cvsroot/technology/org.eclipse.jwt):
>
> jwt-compatibility
> jwt-compatibility/jwt-bpmn
> jwt-compatibility/jwt-samples
> jwt-compatibility/jwt-xpdl
>
> wam/jwt-registry-scorware
> wam/jwt-runtime-bonita-sca
>
> we/jwt-plugin-sample (a sample how to define plugins on top of WE)
> we/jwt-view (a tool to define several views for WE)
> we/jwt-we (the workflow editor itself)
> we/jwt-we-deploy (the deployed plugins as JAR-file that anybody can simply
> copy into his/her eclipse)
> we/jwt-we-doc (a plugin on top of WE in order to generate an
> html-documentation using a workflow model) 
>
> The useless directories (that had been there) have been removed, so now we
> have a clearer structure on our CVS. If any further directories are
> necessary or existing ones should be removed again, please don't hesitate to
> contact me.
>
> Concerning SCA: I would start in one place for the WAM-part (e.g. in
> jwt-runtime-bonita-sca) and if there are extensions necessary on the WE
> (they certainly will!) then we can add another directory to we/jwt-we-sca
> (or something comparable).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Florian
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Marc Dutoo [mailto:marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2007 16:42
> An: Florian Lautenbacher
> Cc: 'Java Workflow Toolbox'; 'Stéphane DRAPEAU'; loic.descotte@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: Re: Components in JWT
>
> Hi Florian
>
> So what about using the JWT CVS on the Open Wide Forge
> https://forge.openwide.fr/projects/jwt/ to host temporarily things that have
> no fixed place yet ? Here at Open Wide we're already using it this way for
> JWT and BPMN samples.
>
>
> Now what about this in the jwt eclipse repository :
>
> jwt-compatibility
> jwt-compatibility / jwt-bpmn (may contain their own samples)
> jwt-compatibility / jwt-xpdl (may contain their own samples)
> jwt-compatibility / jwt-samples (a unified version of the previous
> subproject samples)
>
> And why not :
>
> jwt-wam
> jwt-wam / jwt-runtime-bonita-sca (bonita extension allowing to call sca
> services)
> jwt-wam / jwt-registry-scorware (workflow editor plugin allowing to browse
> the service semantic registry by the INT)
>
> Arguably those last two could be put rather in the SCOrWare private project
> SVN, but I'd rather have the JWT community have a look at it.
>
> jwt4soa would have been an umbrella for soa, sca and scorware minded
> extensions. For example, jwt-wam / jwt-runtime-bonita-sca makes sense, but
> if we also develop jwt-we / jwt-we-sca i.e. an we plugin allowing to drag
> and drop sca components from the Obeo sca editor on JWT actions in order to
> link them together, it might be better to pack both at the same place...I
> admit I'm not sure what is the right thing to do.
>
> Regards
> Marc
>
> NB. The idea of "jwt-samples" was to have one set of
>
> Florian Lautenbacher wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > sorry for the late response. The last days had been quite busy. The 
> > idea to have some additional sub-projects/components where the other 
> > resources could be committed is quite good, but I'm not sure whether we 
> > simply can add components or whether we need to ask the PMC about that. 
> > Actually, we can simply add components in Bugzilla ourselves (using 
> > MyFoundation) and of course adding another directory in the CVS is not 
> > a problem either. Maybe we should first start adding a directory for 
> > the components to CVS and at the same time add the components to 
> > Bugzilla and in parallel to that we can ask EMO about the normal progress
> >    
> about that.
>  
>
> > So, which kind of "components" do we like to have:
> > - I would agree with something like JWT4SOA if that is necessary (what 
> > would be the content of that?)
> > - There definitely needs to be something like JWT-transformations which 
> > could include both jwt-bpmn as well as jwt-xpdl or jwt-bpel. In my 
> > opinion those could easily be bundled in one component (however having 
> > different source code of course).
> > - JWT-samples are surely necessary. However I'm not sure, whether this 
> > should be an own component or whether we simply should have a part on 
> > our web site called "documentation" where these example processes are 
> > given and explained in detail.
> > - jwt-runtime-bonita seems to be part of the proposed WAM part of JWT, 
> > so I don't see why we should have an own component for that. Better 
> > start filling the WAM component (where jwt-runtime-bonita could again be a
> >    
> subcomponent).
>  
>
> > The idea of using EAnnotations to support different runtime engines 
> > like Bonita in JWT sounds good to me. However, since I missed the telco 
> > last Friday, there is probably already an agreement on this!? Marc,
> >    
> Stéphane?
>  
>
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Florian
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Marc Dutoo [mailto:marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Gesendet: Montag, 3. Dezember 2007 23:12
> > An: Java Workflow Toolbox; Florian Lautenbacher; Stéphane DRAPEAU; 
> > loic.descotte@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Betreff: Re: AW: [jwt-dev] Re: Samples, BPMN-JWT transformation, new 
> > committers, etc.
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I agree with you. We all promise to do it right in the future :)
> >
> > Actually Loic could have committed the samples, but there is no JWT 
> > project for JWT4SOA or JWT2BPMN or ...
> >
> >
> > What about these subprojects :
> >
> > jwt-bpmn for jwt to bpmn and vice versa transformations and their 
> > integration in jwt we, as well as a quick launch of STP BPMN ed
> >
> > jwt-xpdl for jwt to xpdl (bonita version) transformation and their 
> > integration in jwt we
> >
> > maybe a jwt-samples, to gather a common basic version of our 
> > interoperability & validation samples. Then these scripts could be copy 
> > and pasted by any interoperability project ex. jwt-bpmn and fine-tuned 
> > at will, but at the end the jwt-samples scripts would have to be 
> > updated in a consistent manner. This would ensure that a new 
> > interoperability feature won't break an existing one. Other ideas on 
> > samples and how to ensure format consistence, anyone ?
> >
> > jwt-runtime-bonita for bonita integration as a jwt runtime. NB. this 
> > could also be put in the scorware private project, but I'd rather put 
> > it here so the whole JWT community can help and give inputs.
> >
> > As for how JWT workflow model will have to be extended to support the 
> > bonita runtime there's nothing final yet, but why not add an 
> > EAnnotation mechanism just like BPMN so as to not require to change the 
> > model each time there is a new standard or engine supported ? Florian, 
> > Stéphane, your take on this ?
> >
> > Regards
> > Marc
> >
> >
> >
> >    
> >
> > > By the way, did you read the PMC's comments on the two new committers 
> > > on
> > >   
> > >
> > >      
> > our
> >
> >
> >    
> >
> > > project?:
> > >   
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > > The PMC's comments were: I'm a little concerned by the +1 votes that
> > > > >       
> > > > >
> > > > >          
> > read
> >
> >
> >    
> >
> > > "as requested" - individual committers are required to be making up 
> > > their own minds on whether to vote someone in, not just following a party
> > >      
> line.
>  
>
> > >   
> > >
> > >      
> > I
> >
> >
> >    
> >
> > > will assume that that is what you all have done. Please make sure that
> > >   
> > >
> > >      
> > your
> >
> >
> >    
> >
> > > voting comments in the future correctly reflect your opinions of the 
> > > candidate. Thanks.
> > >
> > > I agree with him, that normally new committers should have developed 
> > > some code, answered some bugs or did anything else, but I also see the 
> > > problem when there is nobody to submit the code and you need to do all 
> > > the things yourself... ;-)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Florian
> > >
> > >
> > >   
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > > Von: Marc Dutoo [mailto:marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 
> > > > > 14. November 2007 19:30
> > > > > An: Stéphane DRAPEAU; Florian Lautenbacher
> > > > > Cc: Etienne Juliot
> > > > > Betreff: JWT to BPMN translation - first spec and samples
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello all
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is my first take on JWT to BPMN translation detailed spec and 
> > > > > samples.
> > > > > You'll find in this mail (content or attachments) :
> > > > >  * a first sample JWT process :
> > > > >       
> > > > >
> > > > >          
> > transformation_sample_3_approval_frompp
> >
> >
> >    
> >
> > > > >  * its translated STP BPMN files : 
> > > > > transformation_sample_3_approval_frompp (without annotations yet
> > > > >       
> > > > >
> > > > >          
> > however)
> >
> >
> >    
> >
> > > > >  * my analysis of JWT to BPMN translation, whose goal is to be the 
> > > > > basis of a translation algo. What about putting this on the wiki ?
> > > > >  * Florian's answers to some questions of mine, that could be the
> > > > >       
> > > > >
> > > > >          
> > first
> >
> >
> >    
> >
> > > > > step towards a "How to build processes in JWT" FAQ. What about 
> > > > > putting this on the wiki ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Next steps :
> > > > >  * MDU : adding annotations to the STP BPMN process (though how 
> > > > > they are obtained is already spec'd)
> > > > >  * MDU : completing my second sample, writing a third one
> > > > >  * everyone : sort out the last indecisions in translation 
> > > > > behaviour (see below first, and in attachments)
> > > > >  * SDR : work on the translation ^^
> > > > >  * FLA : look at all that, help out whenever it is useful (thanks 
> > > > > for cleaning my process)
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Marc
> > > > >
> > > > > PS indecisions to be closed out (see details in attached
> > > > > SCOrWareJwtBpmn) :
> > > > >  * JWT eventHandler
> > > > >  * JWT Data mapping : this I left out for now. Its meaning and use 
> > > > > should be made clearer.
> > > > >  * at a lower level, about JWT events
> > > > >  * I do not agree with the Augsburg proposed mapping for pool & 
> > > > > lane, rather "Pools represent participants, lane are for 
> > > > > categorizing activities".
> > > > >  * I do not agree with the Augsburg proposed mapping Application 
> > > > > to special BPMN DataObjects
> > > > >
> > > > >       
> > > > >
> > > > >          
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > jwt-dev mailing list
> > > > jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
> > > >     
> > > >
> > > >        
> >
> >
> >    
>
>