[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
AW: AW: [jwt-dev] BPEL Generation
|
Hi Pierre,
we were building on the JBoss jBPM workflow engine which includes a BPEL
extension (see [1]). I'm not sure, but it seems there is now a newer version
of the BPEL extension, the last one has been a little bit buggy. This BPEL
extension allowed to deploy BPEL code to the jBPM-engine instead of using
the proprietary jPDL-language.
However, the deployment and the integration framework were done by our
colleagues from eMundo (not implemented at the University of Augsburg), so
if you have further questions you might better ask one of them.
>> [1] http://www.dsmforum.org/events/DSM07/papers/roser.pdf
>> [2] http://www.ds-lab.org/publications/reports/2008-08.html
>>I read those papers. From 1, I don't really get what are the constraints:
can you generate BPEL from any JWT model, even in the case of unstructured
ones (see the one sent in my previous post)?
>> 1. Is the resulting BPEL file correct (means: semantically equivalent to
my JWT model)?
If yes, how? If no, why?
>> 2. What are the constraints at the JWT level for the correct generation
of BPEL code?
Normally it works also for these unstructured cases. The example that you've
sent however is strange somehow, I don't really understand myself why the
code was generated as it is in your BPEL file. So, NO, I don't think that
the resulting BPEL file was correct in your case. I'll talk to some students
of mine and will let you know where the problem was.
Concerning the constraints: before you sent your BPEL-file I thought there
were no constraints and that all the time correct BPEL-code should have been
generated. Probably there is still a small bug in there somewhere. :-(
Best regards,
Florian
[1] http://www.jboss.org/jbossjbpm/bpel/
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pierre Vigneras [mailto:pierre.vigneras@xxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: 05 August 2008 17:33
An: jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Florian Lautenbacher
Betreff: Re: AW: [jwt-dev] BPEL Generation
Le Tuesday 05 August 2008 16:31:09 Florian Lautenbacher, vous avez écrit :
> Hi Pierre,
>
> yes, you are right. There is an underlying framework that is used
> right now in another project called AgilPro integration framework that
> builds on top of the JBoss jBPM engine and that needs all the specific
> invoke calls (start_action, and so on).
Something remains unclear here: do you use a BPEL engine (from JBPM suite)
or the workflow engine (also from JBPM suite) (or both maybe: one for BPEL
interpretation, the other the start_action, and so on ;-)))?
> Therefore, all the additional variables and porttypes are defined. It
> is quite easy to change these templates in order to support any other
> BPEL engine. Our strategy currently was to create an invoke call for
> each data, for each application, for each role, etc. that is
> referenced from an action, before execution the action itself. But
> that is only one strategy. It would of course also be possible to use
> the data simply as parameters and have one invoke call for each action
> instead. Your freedom of choice here!
Fine.
> Concerning the algorithm that is used to change the graph-based model
> into the block-based language, please have a look at [1] that
> describes the workflow codegeneration framework in principal and [2]
> to see how the transformation algorithm internally exact works.
> [1] http://www.dsmforum.org/events/DSM07/papers/roser.pdf
> [2] http://www.ds-lab.org/publications/reports/2008-08.html
I read those papers. From 1, I don't really get what are the constraints:
can you generate BPEL from any JWT model, even in the case of unstructured
ones (see the one sent in my previous post)?
>From 2, I understand that it helps in the finding of components used in the
BPMN2BPEL transformation from Van der Aalst et al.
Anyway, if I am not wrong, the BPEL file sent to you in my previous post
which is the result of the JWT/AgilPro BPEL transformation algorithm is not
semantically equivalent to my unstructured JWT model? In the model,
Activities B and C can be executed in parallel only after A. Activity D
should wait until B and C are completed. E can start as soon as C finished.
Finally, F should be executed only after D and E. From the BPEL file, I
can't find where those constraints are expressed, if they are.
Can you tell me:
1. Is the resulting BPEL file correct (means: semantically
equivalent to my JWT model)?
If yes, how? If no, why?
2. What are the constraints at the JWT level for the correct
generation of BPEL code?
Best regards and thanks for your time. It is highly appreciated.
--
Pierre Vignéras
Bull, Architect of an Open World TM
*BPM Team*, Bull R&D
1, rue de Provence
38130 Echirolles (France)
Direct Line: +33-4-76-29-74-06
*Orchestra*, The BPEL open source project: http://orchestra.objectweb.org
*Bonita*, The XPDL open source project: http://bonita.objectweb.org
