|
Matt,
Monica has some interesting slides for the F2F in
New Orleans.
My take is this.
o BPEL === EAI with XML scripting instead of Java
coding
+
internal process mechanisms that typically
are
not shared externally
+
limited transaction handling capabilities
+ no context mechanism - instead coding to
suit bespoke needs
+
roll your own patterns
+
very programmer-centric
+ WSDL dictates a huge chunk of its behaviour
pattern.
o BPSS === inter-enterprise collaborative
processing
with mature models and patterns builtin
+ uses classic fullsized transaction based exchanges
+ supports context driven and role driven
mechanisms
+
very business-centric
+ binary collaboration and multi-party collaboration
patterns
with signals and flow control
+ conforms to international business law patterns
+
mostly neutral to transport layer
So - depending on who you are in the solution
matrix - its
pretty easy to see which toolset you will
prefer.
EAI integrators - BPEL, eBusiness solution
providers - BPSS.
And nothing to stop you using both in tandem - with
more
support for that coming in BPSS V3.0 - some (WSDL)
in
V2.0 already.
As to MQ-Series being the uquitous solution - not
really!
BizTalk server is more aimed at the common man
than
MQ-Series - which is definately top endian.
Then
notice that Cyclone, Sterling, and raft more
solutions
are aimed at the significant market of people
choosing
not to buy things like MQ-Series.
DW
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 11:24
PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] IBM to Support
BPEL-Based Web Services
Everyone knows that I am a huge ebXML proponent, but I must say
that BP is the one component of our stack that I am ambivalent towards. Why?
First, its taken a long time to get baked (although I applaud the process
since the CEFACT/OASIS schism, and think you people should be proud of your
accomplishments). Second, pretty much any good BP framework/standard can be
integrated with the other ebXML specifications. I think the winner in this
space will be whoever gobbles the most market share.
....and that ocean
liner that is MQ-Series is ubiquitous...and WSIF + BPEL makes J2EE architects
and developers very happy...and BPEL will be picked up by MSFT too. We have
the makings for a ubiquitous solution that people can use soon, and
often.
I'd be interested in an objective compare/contrast of what ebBP
is doing versus BPEL. What are the synergies, if anything. How can those of us
who are moderates in this debate promote ebBP in conjunction with
BPEL?
-Matt
On Apr 15, 2004, at 8:07 PM, David RR Webber
wrote:
Duane,
I never said it was vaporware!
I just was
stating there is nothing *interesting* here.
IBM has always looked to
be middle of the road -
and rarely reaches to be wildly ahead of the
curve.
Paying $2B for Rational was a huge gamble for them,
and
MQ-Series can hardly be viewed as a
revolutionary product set - its been
around for
15+ years - and is the benchmark in
conservative
integration tools.
Why would I think this
interesting, eh?
I know alot of those same ex-r's now working
on
the Eclipse team too. ; -)
What I find interesting is technologies
that
provide an open simple and agile infrastructure
that enables a
broad and diverse marketplace.
MQ-series is an ocean liner - I'm
looking for
something a little more nimble... ;
-)
DW.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duane Nickull"
<dnickull@adobe.com>
To: "David RR Webber"
<david@drrw.info>
Cc: "ebXML BP"
<ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 7:43
PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] IBM to Support BPEL-Based Web
Services
David:
Let's not be negative on this. We will likely be
seeing more direction
in IBM and other companies tooling expanding from
driving infrastructure
toward a broader view of the
technical/developer's need. IBM is
increasingly providing a
comprehensive set of both development time
tooling for developers and
an open-standards based runtime expanding
beyond a traditional
application server on all platforms. Their recent
foray into the
process area of the stack is admirable IMO. A process
driven, service
oriented architecture (re Joseph Chuisano's post) is
being developed
and converging or embracing other ideas benefits
everybody. I happen to
have friends who can rebuke your claims that it
is marketing fluff and
would back up the fact it is real useable
software. The real proof will
be in the delivered developer tools.
I was interested in opinions.
I have noted that you believe it is
vaporware. Does anyone else care to
comment?
Duane
David RR Webber wrote:
Duane,
Still un-news - of course they are providing a
home-spun mix
of Rational-Rose UML and using that to generate
BPEL
and talking up process integration.
And MQ-Series itself
has a chunk of GUI configuration stuff
that is required by human
direction - not to mention inputs
from FAX, IVR or similar
servers.
My experience with these news puffs is - what you
are
reading into this is nothing like what the sales guy who
wrote
the puff is thinking - even though he uses words
you think are cues
to stuff that relates to your work - they
are not.
I bet if
you called a local IBM sales office and asked them
they'd tell you -
yeah that human stuff is our IVR server
interface - or
similar.
Cheers, DW.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
To: "David RR
Webber" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: "ebXML BP"
<ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004
3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] IBM to Support BPEL-Based Web
Services
I found it most interesting. The ability to incorporate
"human or
manual" processes in the midst of a automated exchange,
the runtime
monitoring and execution debugging, bringing Web
services and BPEL
execution to its iSeries and zSeries servers, the
fact that IBM is
moving its' entire WebSphere product line to a
more process centric
methodology all interested me.
Ignore
it if you want but the rest of this group might possibly
consider
what the ramifications are to BPSS etc and at a larger
level to ebXML.
I have my own story but am interested to know what
others see.
Duane
David RR Webber wrote:
Duane,
This just seems like a product pitch for
IBM - and an un-news item as
clearly they wrote the darn spec'
why wouldn't they have
it
implemented?
Was there a specific "interest" item here? I did not
see anything.
DW.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
Cc: "ebXML
BP" <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, April
15, 2004 2:31 PM
Subject: [ebxml-bp] IBM to Support BPEL-Based
Web Services
Interesting read....
IBM to Support BPEL-Based
Web Services on iSeries in Q3 [good clear
article on some of
the latest IBM websphere announcements]
BM's Software Group
is bringing Web services and Business Process
Execution
Language (BPEL) execution to its iSeries and zSeries
servers.
IBM committed to deploying WBISF 5.1 on z/OS during the
second
quarter of the year, and on OS/400 during the third
quarter.
The product is already supported on Linux running on
those two
server
platforms.
http://www.midrangeserver.com/fhs/fhs041304-story03.html
--
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems,
Inc.
http://www.adobe.com
--
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems,
Inc.
http://www.adobe.com
--
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems,
Inc.
http://www.adobe.com
___________________________
Matthew
MacKenzie
Senior
Architect
IDBU Server Solutions
Adobe Systems Canada
Inc.
http://www.adobe.com/products/server/
mattm@adobe.com
+1 (506)
871.5409
|