On 1/10/08, Fernando Lozano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Recently we've been studying a change on how we do things around here, and > this question came up: "Is it possible to have BPEL processes as a POJO > instead of a Web Service and have it called as regular Java?" > > So it is my duty to investigate and try to find an answer and considering > your expertise I thought I might ask here and hear what you have to say.
Hi Fernando, To a certain extent, many WS framework allow you to write a plain Java interface and generate WS stubs and WSDL description for it. You can then use the WSDL to implement the process and have fairly simple Java code overall. You can also write your WSDL first, and generate Java-idiomatic WS stubs for it. This generally leads to more interoperable web services. But I think most people would agree that for use-cases where WS interoperability is not a goal, having to deal with WSDL and XML at all is a pain. The long-term plan and ideas that have been discussed within this project can be grouped under the following categories, 1) A way to write more concise and more dynamic processes while retaining the general BPEL model (SimPEL) 2) Similarly, more concise syntax for service description (Simple WSDL, RELAX-NG, REST support) 3) An easily embeddable and lightweight integration layer that offers more Java-idiomatic service invocation (Embedded IL) I think your post is more about #3 above, although I think #1 and possibly #2 are necessary to make BPEL more accessible and enjoyable to a wider audience of programmers who don't necessarily want to use heavyweight development tooling. If you have ideas and resources to move any of these projects forward, your help would be most welcome. More concretely, if you want to get started on a proof-of-concept for #3, just to collect and post your ideas of what processes exposed as POJOs could look like on the wiki, please do! I think you'll find many interested parties on this mailing-list. alex
