[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tosca] Re:[tosca] RE: Re:[tosca] Groups - Issue_TOSCA318_Lack of BPMN BPEL support-v1.0.pptx uploaded
|
Hi Luc, While I generally agree with the “walk before you run” approach, I believe there might be a very simple way to accommodate what Huabing wants. How about the following:
-
We already have a “delegate” keyname on workflow activities. What if in addition, we also allowed a “delegate” keyname on a top-level workflow definition?
This would signal to the orchestrator (in a standardized way) that the workflow would be taken over entirely by an external entity. The argument of the “delegate” keyname would be the artifact name of the BPNM or BPEL workflow (for which we would obviously
still need to define a processor).
-
I also agree that in order to do this correctly, we will have to standardize an API to the instance model, and more sophisticated TOSCA workflows could
benefit from such an API as well. However, the API available to TOSCA workflows today is limited to “set_state” and “call_operation”. At the very least, we could make those operations available to external workflows, which would put these external workflows
on-par with TOSCA workflows. While this doesn’t entirely address your “portability” concerns, at least it provides a standard way for template designers to signal to the orchestrator that
responsibility for orchestration needs to be delegated to an external workflow engine.
thanks, Chris From: BOUTIER, LUC [mailto:luc.boutier@fastconnect.fr]
Chris, Huabing, I think that we should not constraint 1.2 on custom workflow support and that we should try to go step by step: ·
We still don’t have artifact type executors completed and I think this is the first step we need to complete ·
We still don’t have an instance model ·
And once instance model is defined we will need also an instance model API to be defined and agreed Instance model and Instance model APIs are pre-requisite for any kind of workflow extensions are workflow execution extensions will mean workflow engines external
to the TOSCA orchestrator, or there won’t be portability as we cannot expect or have as a pre-requisite for TOSCA orchestrator to support any kind of Workflow languages especially open workflow languages supporting extensions (meaning not supported everywhere). So, my suggestion is that the 1.2 target should define a way to execute custom operation types in a portable way and we need to have this work completed (this
is the great work started by Chris). BPMN or BPEL in 1.2 will be artifact types with the limitations Chris mentioned. As we say in France « Il ne faut pas mettre la charrue avant les bœufs » Luc From:
<tosca@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com> I’m not sure about the timeframe. Matt should chime in on this. Thanks, Chris From:
tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of zhao.huabing@zte.com.cn Hi Chris, Thanks for your explanation. That's exactly what I'm curious about. So we're planing planning to add arbitrary artifact implementations for the entire workflow of the topology template in 1.2, such as BPMN, BPEL, Node-RED,Ballerina etc.? Thanks, Huabing
Original Mail Sender:
＜lauwers@ubicity.com＞; To: zhaohuabing10201488;
＜mrutkows@us.ibm.com＞; CC:
＜tosca@lists.oasis-open.org＞;
＜claude.noshpitz@att.com＞;
＜paul.lipton@ca.com＞;
＜lishitao@huawei.com＞;MengZhaoXing10024238; Date: 2017/03/23 12:21 Subject: [tosca] RE: Re:[tosca] Groups - Issue_TOSCA318_Lack of BPMN BPEL support-v1.0.pptx uploaded Hi Huabing, Yes, your understanding of the plan is correct. However, in the current version of the spec, artifacts can only be used to provide implementations for
operations. For example, this means that you will be able to specify a BPEL workflow to implement the “create” operation on the Standard lifecycle operation. We currently don’t have a mechanism to use artifacts as implementations for entire workflows. This will
need to get added in a later version. Thanks, Chris From:
zhao.huabing@zte.com.cn [mailto:zhao.huabing@zte.com.cn]
Hi Matt, Chris, I haven't find any update about this in my inbox, did I miss anything? I guess the idea is that TOSCA could take BPMN/BPEL as an artifact type and it can be executed by an artifact processor(workflow execution engine) provided by orchestrator, right? Thanks, Huabing
Original Mail
Sender: zhaohuabing10201488
To:
＜mrutkows@us.ibm.com＞;
＜lauwers@ubicity.com＞;
CC:
＜tosca@lists.oasis-open.org＞;
＜claude.noshpitz@att.com＞;
＜paul.lipton@ca.com＞;
＜lishitao@huawei.com＞;MengZhaoXing10024238;
Date: 2017/03/16 09:54
Subject: Re:[tosca] Groups - Issue_TOSCA318_Lack of BPMN BPEL support-v1.0.pptx uploaded Hi Matt, Thanks for uploading the slide deck. Do we have a minutes for this meeting? I'm still improving my English skill, so I have difficulty to get all the points of everyone in this meeting. Is the conclusion that we'll incorporate BPMN/BPEL workflow as artifact in the later version of simple YAML and Chris are working on that? Thanks, Huabing
Sender:
＜mrutkows@us.ibm.com＞;
To:
＜tosca@lists.oasis-open.org＞;
Date: 2017/03/15 23:16
Subject: [tosca] Groups - Issue_TOSCA318_Lack of BPMN BPEL support-v1.0.pptx uploaded Submitter's message
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]