Dims, At this point, I think I used the term "parser" a bit too generically. I should have used the term "translator".
Lance On 2/21/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lance, > > > I am currently looking into a BPEL 2.0 parser > > Looked at bpel-parser in pxe yet? > (http://svn.intalio.org/viewrep/PXE/pxe/bpel-parser). If it does not > serve your purposes, the pxe folks may(hopefull will :) be able to > whip it to shape to suit your purposes. WDYT? > > thanks, > dims > > On 2/21/06, Lance Waterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James, > > > > This sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps a starting point would be a set of > > BPEL 1.1/2.0 acceptance tests ( which have been mentioned in other > threads > > )? > > > > I am currently looking into a BPEL 2.0 parser for the Sybase engine. My > plan > > was to migrate our current BPEL 1.1 tests to BPEL 2.0, however I > > think having a common set of BPEL acceptance tests in Ode would be a > good > > idea. > > > > I have not had a chance to look through the PXE contribution for BPEL > > acceptance tests. What do folks think about merged BPEL acceptance tests > as > > a starting point? > > > > Lance > > > > > > On 2/20/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > There seems to have been an assumption that there should only be one > > > orchestration/BPEL/workflow engine in the Ode project. So far I seem > > > to be MrNegative repeatedly doubting whether this assumption is valid > > > or useful so I just wanted to get feedback on peoples thoughts on > > > this specific issue, particularly from the Sybase/PXE folks. > > > > > > Here's my personal take: > > > > > > Right now today the Sybase code is geared more towards being a > > > generic orchestration/workflow engine that today supports BPEL 1.1 > > > and can support other orchestration/workflow languages and could be > > > ported to 2.0 without huge amounts of effort. PXE is specifically > > > geared towards BPEL 2.0 as its primary design which could well be a > > > good thing if you want a BPEL 2.0 engine - though I do find the PXE > > > code harder go grok - but maybe that's because its more BPEL 2.0 > > > specific. > > > > > > In summary they are both very different, solving things in different > > > ways - I see value in both codebases as they are today. I also see > > > areas they can collaborate (as PaulB mentioned recently). So we can > > > definitely have code reuse across the two engines. However I honestly > > > have no idea if we can ever merge the two codebases into one - the > > > experiment has some merit for sure but it could be too big a leap. > > > > > > Putting that ServiceMix hat on again; we certainly have a use case for > > > > > > * a general purpose orchestration engine that we can use from Java > code > > > * BPEL 1.1 > > > * BPEL 2.0 > > > * any new XML language that comes out in the orchestration/workflow > > > space > > > > > > So both engines have immediate value to ServiceMix. > > > > > > Putting that Ode hat on again, my personal priorities on the ODE > > > project are are to get both engines working well in their new Apache > > > home, then looking to where we can reuse code & infrastructure across > > > the two. But unifying the code into one engine isn't on my personal > > > list of itches to scratch (and I've lots of itches :). I'm perfectly > > > happy for them to stay separate and let reuse happen iteratively over > > > time. > > > > > > Specifically to Sybase & PXE folks, what are your thoughts? > > > > > > James > > > ------- > > > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > > > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ >
