How is it going with adding support for using an already-running BPEL engine or adding support for jBPM-BPEL ? Do you guys need any help ?
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Benowitz, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luciano, > > Thanks for the info. As for using an already-running BPEL engine, the > goal is simply to minimize the footprint; our customer anticipates > having a BPEL engine running independently of SCA, so he doesn't want > the SCA runtime to launch another one. I am not sure I understand what > the issue is with this, other than the fact that the SCA runtime must > know how to access the "remote server" and where *.bpel files need to be > deployed; why would there be configuration conflicts? > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luciano Resende [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 10:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: How to extend BPEL support? > > > Great to see you guys interested in BPEL, see below for my comments : > > First, let me address the license issues, looks like jBPM-BPEL is > CDL and we should be ok to use that in Apache, as for ActiveBPEL, this > is GPL v2 and this is not compatible with Apache license and thus not > permitted in Apache releases. > > As for the current BPEL support in Tuscany, we have developed two > Tuscany extensions that plugs into Tuscany runtime, and provides > support for (1) modeling the BPEL implementation (a BPELImplementation > model object representing an <implementation.bpel> in an SCA > assembly), (2) reading/writing <implementation.bpel> elements using > artifact processors, and (3) the runtime behavior to start/stop the > BPEL process and drive invocations to/from it, using a BPEL engine, > ODE in the case of what is available today in Tuscany. > > In general we've tried to separate the model + XML read/write and > the runtime behavior and we've packaged them in different modules, to > allow for the kind of runtime extension that you're thinking about > (another BPEL engine), without having to rewrite the model + XML > read/write support. in the BPEL example, the model + XML read/write is > in module implementation-bpel, the ODE specific runtime behavior in > implementation-bpel-ode. > > So, in order to add support for another BPEL engine, we should > leave the current implementation-bpel as is, you shouldn't have to > make any changes to it (except for maybe changing implementation.bpel > to implementation.bpel.ode), and for your specific runtime behavior > implementation, create a new implementation-bpel-jbpm module, similar > to implementation-bpel-ode, but using jbpm instead. To implement that > module, maybe you can just start with a copy of > implementation-bpel-ode or even something simpler like > samples/implementation-pojo-extension for example (as > implementation-bpel-ode contains quite a bit of ODE specific code > which you won't need) > > Now, regarding your request to "to use an already-running BPEL > engine rather than launching its own embedded ODE server", I'd like to > better understand your requirements/scenarios. One of the issues I see > with this is that your "remote server" will have it's own > configuration, that would compete with the configuration that will > come from SCA, so a user can't just change a web service endpoint in > SCA for example and expect that it's gonna work, he has to (1) write > the config in SCA (2) go call the server admin expert to change the > remote server config manually to match what he said in SCA, etc.. > Having said that, I believe you must have some good > requirements/scenarios and it's fine to play with this in Tuscany. > > BTW, I have created a project structure to help you guys get > started [1], and it should be available in trunk at svn revision > #688939. > > [1] > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/modules/implementation > -bpel-jbpm > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:22 PM, paul li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I would be interested in doing the same, and would appreciate some >> suggestions >> >> thanks, >> >> Paul >> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Benowitz, Michael >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> I am interested in adding to Tuscany the ability to use an > already-running >>> BPEL engine rather than launching its own embedded ODE server. I > would also >>> like to make it support different BPEL engines such as jBPM-BPEL > and/or >>> ActiveBPEL. How feasible is this, and what kind of source code > changes >>> would it require? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Paul Li >> my blog:- terraformartist.com >> > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany Committer > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
