Re: [soa-pmc] Re: eBPM Proposal

[Zsolt Beothy-Elo <zsolt.beothy-elo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Andrea,
I agree with Wayne that the section describing the scope should be more specific. Additionally I have some further points:
- You should make explicit that not every OSGi service can be orchestrated by eBPM out of the box. To be  part of the orchestration a service has to follow the messaging model you mention and provide the corresponding interface. So for existing services at least an eBPM specific facade has to be implemented.
- While eBPM is targeted to orchestrate services located in the same runtime (at least the pictures imply it) with the help of suitable connector services you can also integrate external services (OSGi and non OSGi), e.g. remote OSGi service with an ECF based connector or Web services with a Swordfish based connector. I think this is worth to be mentioned.
- You also mention as one of the proposed components the "BPM Gateway Process Engine" which will be be based on an open source process engine for example jbpm. If you really want to base the component on jbpm even if you do not intend to deliver jbpm together with the project you will have a dependency to it, which must be approved by the IP team. Unfortunately jbpm is published under LGPL which at least to my knowledge will not be approved by the IP team. I would advise you to select another more eclipse friendly process engine or at least get in contact with the IP team to smooth out potential IP issues.
- You should also mention that there is some overlap with Swordfish regarding the base technology we are using. eBPM's messaging model is conceptually very similar to one from JBI exposed through the Normalized Message Router(NMR). Swordfish itself is based on JBI through ServiceMix and relies on the messaging model provided Normalized Message Router(NMR). As discussed we should investigate whether it is feasible to base Swordfish on eBPM's messaging model and achieve a better integration between both products.

Zsolt


Am 02.02.2010 um 17:09 schrieb Wayne Beaton:

> I need to see an entirely text-based scope. The images should provide a 
> great complement to the text.
> 
> Wayne
> 
> Andrea Zoppello wrote:
>> Hi Wayne,
>> 
>> Thank you for your feedback.
>> 
>> Basically in the images attached to the proposal, the "white" boxes is 
>> what we leverage from other projects, instead the "yellow" ones will 
>> be provided by eBPM.
>> 
>> In details we're going to use:
>> 
>> 1) BPMN Modeler from eclipse BPMN Modeler project ( 
>> http://www.eclipse.org/bpmn/ )
>> 2) BPEL Editor from eclipse bpel editor project ( 
>> http://www.eclipse.org/bpel/ )
>> 3) STP Intermediate Model that will become the Mangrove project.
>> 
>> Do we need to make this explicit in the text of the proposal???? I've 
>> attached a new version of the proposal with update images to make 
>> explicit the usage of the STP IM ( Mangrove ) Project.
>> 
>> Let me know if it is ok for you, or we need to update the proposal.
>> 
>> Andrea
>> 
>> Il 01/02/2010 19:25, Wayne Beaton ha scritto:
>>> I'd like to see more of the information captured as images in the 
>>> scope captured in text. Specifically, it is not clear to me which 
>>> boxes in the diagram represent code that is implemented by eBPM vs. 
>>> code that is leveraged from other projects and sources. Can you 
>>> please make sure that the scope is completely explicit?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Wayne
>>> 
>>> Anne Jacko wrote:
>>>> Mike, Wayne, SOA PMC -- please review and comment on this proposal 
>>>> from Angelo. Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/ebpm/
>>>> 
>>>> Anne Jacko
>>>> emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Wayne Beaton, The Eclipse Foundation
> http://www.eclipse.org
> 
> I'm going to EclipseCon!
> http://www.eclipsecon.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> soa-pmc mailing list
> soa-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/soa-pmc