[news.eclipse.technology.jwt] Re: catching up the train

[Fabrice Dewasmes<fabrice.dewasmes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Guennadi Vanine" <vgv8@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi all,
>How can I help? (I am interested only in designer and possibility to compact 
>workflow graphical representation, add definitions of workflow nodes to 
>sidebar, attach editable data structures to workflow nodes at run-time 
>through pop-up datagrid table and save it according to my XSD in one fused 
>XML definition of workflow)
>I think I lag behind all others (I currently review JaWE docs, Swing-AWT 
>bridge, my own Swing designer, GMF, GEF, GMT, XSD, etc.)
>
>I also would like to see designer both as plug-in and STAND-ALONE. 
>Thereafter the design somewhat defensive to Eclipse UI reuse.

this would mean eventually being able to use the designer in Eclipse
RCP. In my opinion there is no other way to do it.
>
>Here is, ahead of us, BPEL Designer with dead discussion forum and somewhat 
>proprietory activity. Let me note that it is from that type of designers 
>where user do not have control of coordinates of workflow nodes (it is 
>managed by Layout Manager) and this is the sequence of BPEL, i.e its 
>context/objectives (orchestration of webservices, and this is very NARROW 
>and proprietory). And BPEL-Designer project treats already BPEL but I am 
>interested in non-webservices oriented workflow definitions with human 
>interactions on server-side and possibilities to control/redefine formats 
>and on client side.
>I also posted that XPDL (there is always lost in trnslation from graphical 
>notation to XML representation) is the most flexible and complete and BPEL 
>is really not first priority.
>Pluggability of various representation is.
>
>The issue of Swing is not so much and not only of code reuse but also 
>interoperability. At least, IMHO the design should leave holes for this.

Right but where and how ?

>
>In another post, I mentioned that it is difficult to count with Omondo 
>EclipseUML Free Ed.

I noticed your remark and knew about this issue. But I was not saying to
that we should use Omondo. I used it as a convenient way to build the
model.
>Then I could not understand how someone will fuse dynamically added data 
>associated eith workflow nodes into XML/XMI model as well as how to specidy 
>the model in XML (in text editor?). You go from XMI to EMF ECore in order to 
>produce Java representation model. Anyway, the problem is how to cotrol EMF 
>ECore model representation in custom XML

If you read the EMF redbook they point to how you can customize the XML
serialization and augment it with your own custom tags. If think the EMF
way of doing this is to use a JET template for the doSave command.>
>GEF with EMF is good for creation of a number of similar pure graphical 
>editors (m.b. for more than 6) but we are to create one. But EMF or GMF 
>doesn't give any PLUGGABILITY of various workflow models (other than 
>recompiling or upgrading the designer). It is conceptual issue and has 
>nothing to do with experience or stability of frameworks and tools.

This is both issues indeed. But maybe that I was not clear enough on
this part : 
"- Everything is cool when considering XPDL XML schema or BPEL 
schema but this forces any new workflow/process grammar to be developped
this way which is not so easy for newcomers." 

This is the same exact thing you're telling. Meeting of the minds ;)

>
>Correct me,
>Guennadi Vanine 
>
>

Fabrice


--