[news.eclipse.technology.jwt] Re: Wrap-up

[Roman Zulauf <rzulauf@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Farbrice

Fabrice Dewasmes wrote:
> My feeling on using EMF/GMF is that there are chances that using these 
> frameworks may turn development into a nightmare of configuration tricks.
>
> --> Seems that most of the people around here have expressed same kind 
> of feelings and for this reason I propose to stay on the only use of GEF.
I agree with you completely

> *** Use of BPMN
> ****************
>
> Use of BPMN is of interest for two important reasons :
> - First, it allows to have a common graphical representation for two 
> different grammar in one shot : BPEL and XPDL.
> - second, as Allen reported in reply to Guennadi, BPMN proposes to fold 
> up Pool and lane which would be helpful for addressing large workflows 
> which don't fit into one screen.
>
> Roman and Guennadi have exposed the requirement to be able to plug in 
> other representations and especially simplfied representation for 
> business users. As a matter of fact BPMN is for technical users and 
> might be not understandable by a business analyst.
>
> --> I propose to had this as a requirement in the proposal and put BPMN 
> as an exemplary graphical representation.
Good idea.

> Roman is already working on how to abstract things to allow several 
> representations to be plugged in. Roman, it would be really nice if we 
> can integrate an early snapshot of your work in the proposal or creation 
> review slides.
What exactly do you need at this point? While I have done some work I 
would need to assemble my results to provide you with what you need. I 
assume this is within the timeframe of the next few days?

> *** Use of a Swing bridge
> **************************
>
> Recent discussions have raised the possibility of reusing some existing 
> graphical editors or pieces of work relying on Swing. The proposed way 
> of reusing this work is to use SWT AWT bridge. I'm not in favor of doing 
> this because this will certainly be a cause of refusal.
>
> --> What is the opinion of others ?
I feel that we should do it right from the start. While the SWT AWT 
bridge has its correct place in the eclipse platform, I think it is the 
wrong thing to base on for a project to become part of the eclipse 
technology platform. I would rather favor rewriting the graphical editor 
from scratch while reusing key concepts and design patterns used in 
existing editors.

> *** WAM
> *********
>
> This topic has not been very much discussed. Michael Lipp has proposed 
> pointers to WfXML for workflow process deployment and OMG API for 
> accessing and controlling running workflow processes. We might consider 
> working on WAM in a second step, but I'd like to make people aware that 
> the STP project has been accepted and created those last days. STP 
> project is of great interest for JWT as JWT could be part of required 
> tools for the STP project and deployment and management facilities could 
> be done by implementing contracts defined by STP.
WfXML and the OMG API are two possible APIs to use. But again I suggest 
to provide a generic interface which can be implemented by a plugin. So 
there could be a plugin for the WfXML (SOAP/ASAP) interface, a plugin 
for the OMG API, a plugin for the jBPM API etc. etc.

I am definetely interested in the definition of these interfaces.
> --> I will contact Carl from STP during the next days to see synergies 
> between projects.
>
> *** Creation review
> ********************
>
> As I've said in previous posts, I think we're ready to ask for creation 
> review. As you might know this is a very important step in the project 
> lifecycle as failing to creation review will prevent it to go any 
> further. We have to hardly work on creation review slides and update the 
> proposal.
>
> --> If everyone is OK I'm going to ask next week for creation review to 
> Eclipse PMC.
>
> *** Proposal
> *************
>
> Pending modifications on the proposal are :
> - give pointers to the initial code contributions
> - put Allen Young and people from Shanghai JiaoTong University in the 
> proposed committer list
> - Add Guennadi to interested participants
> - rectify typo in ObjectEngineering GmbH
> - Add BPMN
> - Add requirements to plug several representations especially for 
> business oriented users
This seems ok to me.

> --> Anyone willing to make modifications to the proposal is welcome.
>
> Waiting for your comments/reactions
>
> Best regards,
>
> Fabrice Dewasmes
Hope my feedback helps. Thanks again for your hard work on this.

Regards
Roman