tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post3494177616442913659..comments2023-07-04T12:59:09.183+02:00Comments on Process Developments: Standalone BPM Is DeadTom Baeyenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03067067751334471585noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-62104852674203342592012-02-03T03:17:37.527+01:002012-02-03T03:17:37.527+01:00I think any standalone software system is dead now...I think any standalone software system is dead now. The reason is that enterprise system like ERP covers a lot of ground and you can put so many software modules on top of it.Ben Benjabutrhttp://www.scm-operations.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-52207378687134263602010-05-18T04:35:37.752+02:002010-05-18T04:35:37.752+02:00@John Reynolds I have not yet formed a detailed op...@John Reynolds I have not yet formed a detailed opinion but that "Process Manager to Process Manager interaction" might become more important with a more universal acceptance of BPMN 2.0. Such interactions could involve processes within more than one organisation.akuckartzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16658781946035364424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-66252658103049454672010-05-13T07:18:28.467+02:002010-05-13T07:18:28.467+02:00Thanks for the clarification Tom... Now it makes p...Thanks for the clarification Tom... Now it makes perfect sense to me.<br /><br />"Standalone" should really use the same embedded Process Manager API as everyone else. <br /><br />As I blogged awhile back, I think deep Process Manager to Process Manager interaction is going to become a must have, and your efforts are key to accomplishing that.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13852313153136272800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-11331489345965792672010-05-12T16:47:54.998+02:002010-05-12T16:47:54.998+02:00Are you proposing a BPM system where processes are...Are you proposing a BPM system where processes are managed and performed by services, kind of rest interface, which is the approach of CouchDB? Isn't it a good problem to be solved by Erlang, since there is a lot of parallelism and scalability involved? Is Java still appropriate for this kind of problem?Hildebertohttp://www.hildeberto.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-41636234768914388502010-05-12T15:47:19.797+02:002010-05-12T15:47:19.797+02:00Hi John,
In the content of the article, I sketch ...Hi John,<br /><br />In the content of the article, I sketch out that embedded usage (both in enterprise apps and ECM) can expand greatly the use case of BPM systems.<br /><br />With that I did not say that the stand alone BPM use case doesn't make any sense. On the contrary, in the intro I try to explain that BPM standalone already makes sense.<br /><br />But I believe that BPM engines that only can be used for standalone BPM will be surpassed by engines that can serve both the standalone use case and all the embedded use cases as well.<br /><br />OK i admit... i picked a catchy title to make you read it. That was maybe stretching it. But hey, it worked! you read it ;-) <br /><br />I hope that I clarified my point more clearly now.Tom Baeyenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03067067751334471585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-21805803079079331592010-05-12T10:29:33.575+02:002010-05-12T10:29:33.575+02:00First... I am delighted by your new project, and I...First... I am delighted by your new project, and I am sure it will be great.<br /><br />But I am going to have to disagree with you about the death of standalone Tom... There is clearly a strong case for embedded BPM whenever you are building products that embed process - but that's not the common use case that I experience in my practice. In my practice the Process is the driver of the application and the standalone BPM development environment is the key to success.<br /><br />I think your approach is going to be great for a huge number of applications, but not for the type that I usually work on.<br /><br />Your new embedded approach is going to be much better for professional developers, and based on recent developments the "standalone BPM" approach is getting much better for occasional/business programmers.<br /><br />I see a bright future for both.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13852313153136272800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-80861001783929471682010-05-11T21:35:14.643+02:002010-05-11T21:35:14.643+02:00Thanks, Stefan. Great to have you on board!Thanks, Stefan. Great to have you on board!Tom Baeyenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03067067751334471585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309414151374220630.post-86020423047549043872010-05-11T21:32:10.016+02:002010-05-11T21:32:10.016+02:00100% d'accord ! Thats why we where in 2003 att...100% d'accord ! Thats why we where in 2003 attracted about jBPM. Respect to your upgright position and the consequences taken.<br /><br />There is great potential, that your new project will change the bpm scene again!<br /><br />The next-level-integration.com development team is happy to make a serious contribution to the new project.<br /><br />Our b2bbp.org provisioning platform for industry practices will take advantage of such an embedded BPMN engine!<br /><br />Stefansklosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00881186984900521665noreply@blogger.com