Mark, the ODE integration is one of the projects that Kris suggest to me.. if you want i can take a look at that.. Let me know or talk with Kris about that.. may be I can start working on it..
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Umesh Wankhede < [email protected]> wrote: > > > Mark Proctor wrote: > >> Umesh Wankhede wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Mark Proctor wrote: >>> >>>> Umesh Wankhede wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> I am trying to evaluate various features (rules and workflow) of Drools >>>>> 5.0. What I understand from docs (drools-docs-flow.pdf - page 5) is that >>>>> the >>>>> Drools flow engine is based on generic process engine that allows the >>>>> execution of different process languages like RuleFlow, BPEL, OSWorkflow, >>>>> etc. Although I am able to do PoC (Proof of Concept) with RuleFlow, there >>>>> isn't any documentation/samples available for using BPEL as process >>>>> language. Also I don't find any more information on blogs, etc. >>>>> If anyone has done something similar, please let me know, or any >>>>> pointers would help. >>>>> >>>> There is no BPEL product, Drools COULD do BPEL, but we haven't made it >>>> do so yet. It is more likely we would look to integrate an existing BPEL >>>> product like ODE, as the execution engine is the easy bit, it's all the xml >>>> manipulations that are time consuming. >>>> >>> So that means I would have to go with jBPM for BPEL support (and losing >>> the advantage of tight rule engine integration provided in Drools). How far >>> would be the BPEL support in Drools in the roadmap? >>> >> If you are going to use BPEL I would recommend ODE, jBPM BPEL is not BPEL >> 2.0, but 1.0, which is very limited. ODE is likely to be the BPEL engine we >> integrated into Drools. >> >> More importantly though, have a good think on why it is you are using >> BPEL, as in reality it's generally too low level for end users to use >> effectively. >> > The primary language would be RuleFlow or jPDL, but we are also looking at > BPEL support (product requirements driven). So we have to make a choice > between jBPM or Drools 5.0. The latter option looks more suitable for our > requirement which provides tightly integrated rule support, but lack of BPEL > support currently is making the decision tougher. > > >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Umesh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Legal Notice: This transmission, including any attachments, is >>>>> confidential, proprietary, and may be privileged. It is intended solely >>>>> for >>>>> the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you have >>>>> received this transmission in error and you are hereby advised that any >>>>> review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this transmission, >>>>> or any of the information included therein, is unauthorized and strictly >>>>> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please >>>>> immediately notify the sender by reply and permanently delete all copies >>>>> of >>>>> this transmission and its attachments >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rules-users mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rules-users mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > -- - Salatino Mauricio -
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
