tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post8695825876757321932..comments2023-07-04T12:59:09.183+02:00Comments on Process Developments: Active Endpoints, Chicken And ActivitiTom Baeyenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03067067751334471585noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-37540243846910856492010-12-07T16:14:19.225+01:002010-12-07T16:14:19.225+01:00Hi Anonymous,
In the past, at various stages and ...Hi Anonymous,<br /><br />In the past, at various stages and in various branches/implementations, the PVM principles have been used to implement those languages mentioned.<br /><br />In Activiti our primary goal is not to support all those languages on the PVM. Instead we clearly chosen to work out BPMN 2.0 as our main language. Nevertheless, the PVM is just a good process engine design. And the pluggability is there if people want to use it.<br /><br />At this moment, PVM is still being shaped for easier pluggability. Mainly to simplify usage of different persistence technologies. <br /><br />Our first priority is to have an executable BPMN 2.0 engine. Secondary is that we expose a stable API to use the PVM. At this moment the PVM API's can not be considered stable and are only available in .impl. packages indicating it is internal stuff.Tom Baeyenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03067067751334471585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-86683442866675137102010-12-07T13:24:14.244+01:002010-12-07T13:24:14.244+01:00You state you mapped different languages to the PV...You state you mapped different languages to the PVM model (jPDL, BPEL, SEAM Pageflow, XPDL and now BPMN 2.0). Where can we find the result of that? The activiti forums speak of work that is in progress or even not yet planned. <br /><br />For web services specifically, can activiti be used to orchestration?<br /><br />BPEL<br />http://forums.activiti.org/en/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22<br /><br />XPDL<br />http://forums.activiti.org/en/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=184Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-85239856116600732082010-05-26T13:49:34.709+02:002010-05-26T13:49:34.709+02:00I can't speak to their motivation but at one p...I can't speak to their motivation but at one point the open source release was only a few months behind each commercial release. The last open source release (5.0.2) supported WS-BPEL 2.0 as well as the BPEL4People 1.0 white paper. The current open source version is pinned at 2.1 and only supports BPEL4WS 1.1. <br /><br />There's no need to fold my code back into their trunk since they've already progressed beyond it. All I've added is support for JDK 1.6, maven build, JMX, and ServiceMix - none of which is on their radar.<br /><br />As for my motivation, I work in the defense research sector and grew weary of continually patching or working around issues in Apache ODE and wanted a fully compliant WS-BPEL engine. Having previously downloaded the AE 5.0.2 open source release, I decided to resurrect the project. I know the code well from having worked there and it's exactly what I needed. The GPL license is fine for my research. <br /><br />I'll check out Activiti since I like the idea of a unified modeling and execution language. Hopefully you have time to code in between flame wars with Alex ;)Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04866251932513207439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-76219127903896650902010-05-26T08:01:27.735+02:002010-05-26T08:01:27.735+02:00Admin,
That's interesting. Do you know why A...Admin,<br /><br />That's interesting. Do you know why AE would not want the BPEL 2.0 compatibility?<br /><br />What's your motivation to maintain the google project? Are the plans for your project to feed back into AE? Or do you plan to keep it separate?<br /><br />regards, tom.Tom Baeyenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03067067751334471585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-72349076375713032852010-05-26T02:08:40.740+02:002010-05-26T02:08:40.740+02:00Your link to AE's open source offering is accu...Your link to AE's open source offering is accurate but you should know that the download is for an older version of the software that doesn't support WS-BPEL 2.0. <br /><br />I maintain a more recent version of their open source code at code.google.com/p/bpel-g. It's still GPL to comply with the original license but at least it's WS-BPEL 2.0 compliant.Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04866251932513207439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-71557132882635130522010-05-25T08:33:08.498+02:002010-05-25T08:33:08.498+02:00I realize that Michael was referring to the archit...I realize that Michael was referring to the architecture and not the license. The architectural analogy between the PVM and the OS microkernel is non existent and hence I think it's FUD.<br /><br />The comment on the Active Endpoint licensing was intended separate from that. I just think it's ironic for Active Endpoints to build up the microkernel argument waiving with Linus Torvalds when Active Endpoints and Linus differ so much on (the separate) license topic. <br /><br />Rereading, I indeed did not separate those two properly.Tom Baeyenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03067067751334471585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-79130109348113436982010-05-25T07:02:19.750+02:002010-05-25T07:02:19.750+02:00The microkernel-debate was about the architecture ...The microkernel-debate was about the architecture of operating systems. It had nothing to do with the GPL or other licenses.<br /><br />Andreas Kuckartzakuckartzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16658781946035364424noreply@blogger.com