Here is the first try:
The Java Workflow Tooling project (JWT)
brings open business process design and development to the Eclipse platform.
It’s goal is to not only to allow users to model their
processes, but also to refine them by adding technical
information so they are ready to be executed on existing process or workflow
engines.
JWT already comes with several built-in
extensions, e.g. an UML Activity Diagram and an Event-driven Process Chain (EPC)
view, BPMN interoperability and code generation algorithms (e.g. for XPDL or
WSBPEL). -- really algorithms? I would only speak of code
generation
Additional views, model extensions and
transformations can be integrated through a flexible framework allowing
communities and vendors to build their own BPM platforms. See more about it at
Why JWT?[link] and JWT Ecosystem[link] --BPM platform without
"s"?
Maybe the “Getting started” section could
also be replaced by a textual description? Although I like the short and easy list,
I would not be against changing it to
text.
A screencast[link] demonstrates how an
executable business process can be designed
and implemented. If you are new to JWT or want to build your
own BPM solution you can refer to the tutorial[link]. The downloads can be found
here[link] or directly on the update site[link].
Finally, a small point which I forgot to
mention yesterday: What is your opinion about the download page in the wiki. I
think it’s kind of redundant since we now have Marc’s new download page which is
much nicer. Also the wiki page with links to each separate plugin is a pain to
maintain ;)
I agree that the wiki page is hard to maintain,
but I think it has its place: it shows the different update sites of JWT
(nightly, stable, etc.) and allows people to download only some parts (e.g.
the tutorial, etc.). Of course we needn't put all separate plugins there anymore
for any JWT 0.6 and later, since we already have too many. But maybe having a
place where the workflow editor alone without additional plugins can be
downloaded, would be good for other integrators? Probably something to further
discuss.
Best regards,
Florian