[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] IBM to Support BPEL-Based Web Services
ZB, I'm just trying to get the easy bits working! However - if you have excellent modelling tools for describing BPSS - then I believe you have shown that it is in fact a strong technology for describing the business process flow - and this indeed is the crux of what V2.0 and then V3.0 are delivering IMHO. We first encountered this in the AutoTech scenarios - see: http://drrw.net/visualscripts/#ebXML Making these fully functional in BPSS is the challenge, and I am certain that with BPSS V2.0 this is now possible - just my models need some attention to fix them - and that's my goal here - to use BPSS V2.0 and validate the scenarios. Thanks, DW. ----- Original Message ----- From: "ZBarch" <zbarch@rcn.com> To: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>; "Kenji Nagahashi" <nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com> Cc: "ebXML BP" <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] IBM to Support BPEL-Based Web Services > David, > > > > It seems to me Kenji meant under "automation" the ability of BPSS to be a > > so called "configuration" file for Business System Interface (BSI) - i.e. > automation > > of runtime execution of business transactions. If BPSS will be able to > define > > such configuration file, it will, in turn, allow building of the generic > BSI application, > > which will be simply configured for each particular instance of eBusiness > implementation. > > The Business process flow definition doesn't look like the strongest side of > BPSS in its present status. > > > > What IBM has done is very simple - based upon BPEL they've built some EJBs, > included them into > > Websphere plus Web Service support (kill two rabbits with one bullet). It's > a strong market pitch, taking into > > account the current mind set of CIOs and CEOs. > > > > ZB > > > p.s. By the way, I could build a prototype of this generic BSI in 4-6 months > having a sponsor with spare $200K -250K. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info> > To: "Kenji Nagahashi" <nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com> > Cc: "ebXML BP" <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 10:54 PM > Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] IBM to Support BPEL-Based Web Services > > > > Kenji, > > > > I would disagree here. > > > > I have built a BPEL editor as well as a BPSS one. > > > > BPEL - as John Yunker so rightly noted - represents > > climbing Mount Fuji - just to make a cup of tea > > every morning. > > > > Joe Chiusano has come the closest I've seen to > > defining a simple approach to BPEL - but that > > suffers from being too simplistic. > > > > Don't forget before you can write any BPEL - you > > first have to learn and write WSDL. It could not > > be more complicated if you tried! > > > > BPEL really is in danger of being a mini-4GL - > > and then there are three ways of doing most > > things - so which one do you pick and why? > > > > Now of course Microsoft and IBM have tried > > to hide all this underneath GUI interfaces that > > write it all for you. The snag then is that the > > BPEL it creates will only work inside their > > toolset (naturally!) and nowhere else. > > > > Maybe you can reserve judgement on just > > what kind of lowlevel trickery is needed in > > BPSS - my sense is not much. > > > > My experience is that for building > > eBusiness process definitions BPSS has > > an excellent feel to it - and the right level > > of detail and control mechanisms to make > > it attainable by business designers (this was > > John Yunkers another point). > > > > That is why I am focused on the editing > > tool as the way to bring realization to the > > marketplace. Once business designers > > realize they can do this themselves quickly > > and easily and are not beholden to a > > classic situation where BPEL programmers > > have to dictate everything to everyone else, > > as technology, not business - then the > > better off everyone will be. > > > > I believe there is every much chance that > > the marketplace will reject BPEL as being > > too complex and too arcane. I say this > > because I've seen alternative process control > > scripting built by another market leader in > > this space - and their approach was compelling > > and simple. Therefore my conclusion is > > that's only a matter of time before we have a > > Python style event horizon and someone like > > a James Clark is talking up their simpler easier > > method.... > > > > DW. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kenji Nagahashi" <nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com> > > Cc: "ebXML BP" <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 10:00 PM > > Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] IBM to Support BPEL-Based Web Services > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > David, I think you're misisng Duane's point... He's talking about > > > prioritization for greater market. > > > I see there are views on BPSS: One view puts higher priority on > > > "documentation", and the other puts higher priority on "automation". > > > For automation purpose, we need to define very formal and detailed > > > computational model for the language, pretty much like BPEL is doing. We > > > need lots of implementation experience for this goal... > > > > > > And my personal view is that "automation" almost always gets greater > > > market share. > > > See how BPEL is doing. BPEL attracted many people for the ability to > > > automate the process and some BPEL engine has been built before any > > > design tools. If language can provide automation with good level of > > > abstraction, people just use it even if no good GUI is available for it. > > > How people used C compiler before Visual C?. How people used HTML before > > > any web authoring tools? > > > > > > I'm not saying "automation" view is right and "documentation" view is > > > not. "documentation" is an important usage of BPSS. And it is also > > > important to think about what BPSS can do for "automation". I'm just > > > wondering if many in ebBP are interested in this aspect. > > > > > > Duane, thanks for your kind words for our Ottawa presentation... It was > > > a great opportunity for both of us! > > > > > > Regards > > > Kenji > > > > > > David RR Webber wrote: > > > > > > > Duane, > > > > > > > > Its a Catch22 - and also resources. > > > > > > > > However - I can build the designer tools for V2.0 in a few days. > > > > > > > > Once I have those - then that creates more of a compelling > > > > reason for the announce on the open source BPSS engine. > > > > > > > > DW > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com> > > > > To: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info> > > > > Cc: "Matthew MacKenzie" <mattm@adobe.com>; "ebXML BP" > > > > <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 4:01 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] IBM to Support BPEL-Based Web Services > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>David RR Webber wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>My top priority coming few weeks is to get BPSS V2.0 > > > >>>editing tools done - so people can build their > > > >>>process models easily. > > > >>> > > > >>>Next up we need someone to announce an open source > > > >>>BPSS engine... room for a joint collaboration on this > > > >>>me thinks. > > > >> > > > >>This is highly illogical. Who would have a need to have BPSS design > > > >>tools or BPSS before you have an engine to run them. I would argue > for > > > >>execution engine first, then the designer toolsets or at least at the > > > >>same time. > > > >> > > > >>Fujitsu demonstrated some pretty cool stuff in this space in Ottawa > last > > > >>month. > > > >> > > > >>Duane > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>-- > > > >>Senior Standards Strategist > > > >>Adobe Systems, Inc. > > > >>http://www.adobe.com > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]