Unfortunately I will not be at EclipseCon
(can't speak for the others).
WID & WSADIE UI Development Lead
Assitant: Jennifer Collins/Ottawa/IBM
Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: stp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
03/13/2006 10:22 AM
Please respond to
cctrieloff and STP Dev list
STP Dev list <stp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Re: [stp-dev] Re: [stp-newsgroup]
Open letter to STP regarding BPEL and
other verticals, from the Eclipse BPEL Designer team
Are you guys going to be at EclipseCon. If so can we sit down Wednesday
and discuss to resolve this?
Daniel Berg wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
> I am forwarding your note to the stp-dev list as well.
> I want to thank Kevin for posting this note to the group. This
> important point that we need to close on quickly. I completely
> with Kevin that STP is a platform for other projects to extend their
> contributions. We will have some contributions to show how it
> but when there is clearly another project within Eclipse that defines
> the implementation type we (STP) should not try to declare the
> contribution to the platform for this type (e..g, BPEL).
> I highly suggest that we take Kevin's proposal and run with it.
> *Kevin McGuire <kevin_mcguire@xxxxxxxxxx>*
> Sent by: stp-newsgroup-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 03/09/2006 03:29 PM
> Please respond to
> "Gateway between eclipse.stp and stp-newsgroup"
Open letter to STP regarding BPEL and other
> verticals, from the Eclipse BPEL Designer team
> Hi folks,
> We (Eclipse BPEL Designer) are somewhat confused about the STP strategy
> around BPEL.
> Our understanding is that the STP project's goal is to provide an
> framework which verticals can plug into.
> So why is STP doing java gen of BPEL models and BPMN tooling? These
> This approach competes with the Eclipse BPEL open source project
> (http://www.eclipse.org/bpel/, proposal at
> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/bpel-designer/). This situation
> in the best interest of the Eclipse community because we are splitting
> our efforts across two models, two UIs, etc.
> ---Why write your own BPEL component?---
> We can understand that there isn't much point having an SOA platform
> without some way of choreographing the services. Given that
> predates the BPEL project, we could understand why rolling your own
> model and editor seemed at the time like a necessary step. However,
> do now have a BPEL open source project, and we'd be happy to see its
> integration into an STP environment.
> BPEL aside, we think there is a larger concern with STP rolling its
> choreography and service components. There are a number of programming
> languages and metaphors which can be used for the choreography of
> services. For example, if someone were to come along with a different
> open source choreography service, say based on state machines, one
> not expect it to be hosted as subproject of STP. If you include
> you should include other services as well, yet clearly STP can't become
> "the place for all interesting web services". Doing
so weakens the
> notion of STP as a platform.
> STP should be exactly what the "P" stands for -- a
platform. It should
> not be in the business of providing vertical applications which will
> their nature compete with other efforts either underway or future.
> clear delineation is required between framework with *supporting*
> tooling and vertical applications in order to create a healthy ecosystem
> for the development of innovative service choreography components.
> Instead, it seems our efforts would be better spent on the integration
> glue for the BPEL open source component to live in an STP environment.
> ---Java Gen of BPEL?---
> In order to support Java gen of BPEL, you will need a model. The
> Eclipse open source BPEL project already has a product quality model,
> one which has been vetted through the rigors of being shipped in
> WebSphere Integration Developer 6.0. To not use that means you
> need to develop and support your own model (with presumably BPMN tooling
> as the visual language). As we already have a model, that seems
> of effort.
> Instead, wouldn't it be a better use of our collective resources to
> gen the eclipse BPEL model? We would be very open to this and
> happy to host this effort.
> --- Why BPMN? ---
> There is nothing I can see from the STP charter that motivates BPMN
> the preferred visual _expression_ of BPEL processes. BPMN just
> be one way of visualizing BPEL flows. This visualization seems
> orthogonal to STP as a platform.
> I see there has been discussion on this general topic in the thread:
> but the answer to me was not clear (the answer seeming to be, "Yes
> ok we have our own BPEL but sure others can join as subprojects").
> There is at its heart here a very basic question of whether STP should
> be creating its own vertical components such as BPEL engines/editors.
> The counter proposal on the table is one of combined forces, where:
> 1) The Eclipse BPEL component becomes a client of STP platform APIs,
> 2) The B2J work be written against the Eclipse BPEL model.
> We believe this approach is the most beneficial to both projects and
> more importantly the community at large. We would be happy to host
> STP extension effort for our BPEL engine.
> Kevin McGuire (IBM), Eclipse BPEL Designer co-lead
> Michal Chmielewski (Oracle), Eclipse BPEL Designer co-lead
> stp-newsgroup mailing list
> stp-dev mailing list
stp-dev mailing list