We can't use jpbm because it is under LGPL. Emmanuel
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Trygve Laugstøl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Erik Drolshammer skrev: > > > Trygve Laugstøl wrote: > > > > > I tried to look at OSWorkflow a while back and found it to be pretty > > > much not what we want. It is very user driven and it was very hard to get > > > it > > > to work in a way that Continuum needed it to. > > > > > > OSWorkflow is perfect for JIRA and the like, but not for server > > > applications. My current bet is on the stuff from JBoss. ODE seems to be > > > more on a BPEL level. ServiceMix used to have something for Java-based > > > workflow composition (bean flow was it?) that looked pretty much what I > > > was > > > looking for at that time. > > > > > > > I used OSWorkflow on my previous project. Some comments: > > > > 1. The book on OSWorkflow [1] is terrible, the online docs are worse > > > > Definitely. > > 2. It works pretty well, but it is really low level. E.g. it does not > > natively support loops, so this kind of functionality you must implement > > yourself. > > > > Right, this is because you end up using pre and post actions to do the > routing. > > 3. It can definitively be used to do what you want, but it is not easy. I > > don't know any better products though. > > > > We evaluated JBoss Drools before choosing OSWorkflow, which worked well, > > but was not suited for our use case. I think it was that it was more useful > > as a rule engine than a general workflow-engine. If its features are what > > you want, Drools seems to be a good product. > > > > I mean jBPM[1], not Drools. One important aspect of using a proper > workflow engine is to make the workflows pluggable so either downstream > and/or users can customize the behaviour. Possibly even compose their own > workflows with pieces of Continuum. > > [1]: http://labs.jboss.com/jbossjbpm/ > > -- > Trygve >
