[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] RE: [ebxml-dev] BPSS execution engine
Steve, I'm happy to work with anyone who wants to use the VisualScript modelling toolset to build BPSS instance models. Also - the jBPM engine is a high candidate for implementing actually execution environment in tandem with a ebMS transport. There has been some work started in that direction. Again - I'm sure someone wanting to investigate this can do so with the jBPM folks. DW ----- Original Message ----- From: "steve capell" <steve.capell@redwahoo.com> To: "'Monica J Martin'" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>; "'Gerald Ebner'" <gebner@ihg.net> Cc: <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>; "'ebXML BP'" <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:14 PM Subject: [ebxml-bp] RE: [ebxml-dev] BPSS execution engine > I'd say that you "COULD" use an abstract BPEL to describe the observable > behaviour of one side of the B2B collaboration and then use that BPEL as a > "stub" for the development of the internal orchestration. However I think > you'd be much better to separate the issue of public collaboration state > management from internal orchestration. That means using a state machine > (write your own or customise one) to manage BSI activities and then having a > loose coupling to the BPEL engine that deals with internal orchestrations. > > We are involved with an Australian government project that will take both > approaches. The stub BPEL approach lends itself to existing vendor products > for the short term. The second approach will be more likely to be more > scalable and manageable in the longer term. > > Regards, > > Steve Capell > Red Wahoo > www.redwahoo.com > p: + 61 2 94383700 > m:+ 61 410 437854 > f: + 61 2 94392738 > > This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain information > that is confidential and is subject to legal privilege. If you are not the > intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this > message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please > notify the sender immediately, and delete this message. Any views expressed > in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender > expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of Red Wahoo Pty. > Ltd. > > Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. > We do not accept any liability for loss or damage which may arise from your > receipt of this e-mail. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Monica J Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2005 1:15 AM > To: Gerald Ebner > Cc: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org; ebXML BP > Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] BPSS execution engine > > Gerald Ebner wrote: > > > Dear ebXML Dev, > > > > first of all: I'm an ebXML newcomer, actualy going through the specs and > > forums, and thinking about an architecture for the B2B system to be > > built. > > My question: I found promising (reference) implementation of the ebXML > > registry and messaging services, but nothing that covers the concept of > > - "business process/BPSS execution engine" > > - "choreography engine" > > - "ebXML execution framework" > > i.e.a run-time execution instance enforcing the BPSS business > > collaboration protocol (I just found /ebSOA, /but that sounds like a > > future approach). > > > > How would one typically implement the choreography? > > - Hand code the BPSS engine? > > - Transform the BPSS to BPEL? How? > > mm1: First (politely), they would reference the latest specifications. > We're almost ready to publish the v2.0.1 for Public Review for OASIS > Committee Draft consideration. ebBP (aka BPSS) is most suited for a > monitoring engine that could understands the expectations, quality of > service, choreography, constraints, logicsl business documents, > activities, etc. described in the ebBP process definition. Since the > v2.0 and now v2.0.1 are very new, we're starting to see development of > ebBP conformant process definitions. We know of several user communities > and vendors that may implement these specifications and associated > schemas (similar to other new technologies). It has been discussed that > there could be a transformation of one party's view (and 1 or more BSI) > into WS-BPEL (1 or more abstract processes and then executable). > However, there is an important difference. ebBP and collaboration are > peer-to-peer. WS-BPEL concentrates on centralized control > (orchestration). Therefore, it, hypothetically speaking, could serve to > help manage other enterprise application processes that support > Business Collaborations. We've recognized that several implementation > options exist and we don't dictate which option is selected (For > example, how tightly or loosely coupled the enterprise or collaborative > processes are, or even if they are related). Feel free to shoot > questions to ebxml-dev, Dale Moberg, and myself. We'd be happy to try to > answer your questions further. What is your interest? Thanks. > > ebBP v2.0.1: > > For r04: > Spec: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13234&wg_abbre > v=ebxml-bp > Schema: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13235&wg_abbre > v=ebxml-bp > SignalSchema: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13236&wg_abbre > v=ebxml-bp > SchemaDocumentation: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13237&wg_abbre > v=ebxml-bp > SignalSchemaDocumentation: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13238&wg_abbre > v=ebxml-bp > SupplementsDocumentation: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13239&wg_abbre > v=ebxml-bp > > Note there are 6 packages. > > Minute > > > > > > thanks in advance > > Gerald Ebner > > > > > > > > > > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by IntaServe - MailGuardian Service at http://www.intaserve.com] > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]