It would seem better to think of the (human) workflow in a different scope as we disect the problem. There are all kinds of issues in Workflow with forms, etc. that have little to do with the actual orchestration or even BPEL. Brings to mind MVC.
It might make sense to divide the problem space like this: Human workflow | BPEL Orchestration Engine Likewise, human workflow could be built on BPEL I suppose but there are other languages that might be mapped into an engine as well. At any rate, keeping the human workflow out of the engine scope is probably worth thinking about. I tend to think of BPEL as a languge for describing orchestration and not in terms of an engine built for BPEL. BPEL is a subset of a broader set of orchestration patterns. There is plenty of academic literature to support that notion. If one supports the patters up front, one can implement BPEL. Presumably, there is a use case and implementation relationship both ways so one can do debugging and so forth. On 2/16/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This raises an interesting point. Is the goal of the project to produce > a BPEL engine? If so, then we could have separation between BPEL > (processes) and workflow (human tasks). I think this would help > modularity and clarify project focus. > > In order words, workflow-related pieces could go into a separate > project and the existing code from Agila would be split between the two > resulting projects. > > So we would end up with something like: > > Apache BPEL => Merge of PXE, Sybase BPE and Agila BPEL > Apache BPEL4People => Merge of Agila workflow and Intalio BPEL4People > > (... and possibly other donations) > > alex > > > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > > > Could I presume to suggest something as obvious as "Apache BPEL" or > > similar? makes it easier for people to grok what we're doing. I know > > it's not terribly imaginative, but might make it easy for people to > > recognize it as a BPEL project. (Like "ActiveBPEL") > > > > geir > > > > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > >> Bill and Ismael, > >> > >> Do be clear, as I understand it from comments such as: > >> > >> Ismael: "Intalio [working] alongside Sybase" > >> Bill Flood: "My preference is simply that we apply our > >> combined talent to work towards something > >> greater than the sum of the parts." > >> > >> and from a telephone call with Bill, the desire on the part of both > >> donors > >> is to have a single project, rather than two separate ones, which > >> will start > >> from both codebases, and work together with others on a union. FWIW, > >> comments that I have received in the past day indicate a great deal of > >> excitement about this possibility, so hopefully something really > >> great will > >> be the payoff from the initial angst. > >> > >> Is there a consensus to call this joint project Ode? If so, we can > >> go ahead > >> with that. Else, if you wanted we could start with "bpel-wg-dev@", > >> so that > >> you can immediately start, and leave "Ode" available for use later at > >> graduation or if there arises a later desire to have separate PXE and > >> "Ode" > >> projects. > >> > >> I prefer, as it seems both of you do, the joint community. Just > >> asking the > >> question. > >> > >> --- Noel > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
