ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lance Waterman" <lance.water...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: are we really gonna end up with 1 engine anyway?
Date Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:23:45 GMT
Dims,

At this point, I think I used the term "parser" a bit too generically. I
should have used the term "translator".

Lance


On 2/21/06, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Lance,
>
> > I am currently looking into a BPEL 2.0 parser
>
> Looked at bpel-parser in pxe yet?
> (http://svn.intalio.org/viewrep/PXE/pxe/bpel-parser). If it does not
> serve your purposes, the pxe folks may(hopefull will :) be able to
> whip it to shape to suit your purposes. WDYT?
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 2/21/06, Lance Waterman <lance.waterman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > This sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps a starting point would be a set of
> > BPEL 1.1/2.0 acceptance tests ( which have been mentioned in other
> threads
> > )?
> >
> > I am currently looking into a BPEL 2.0 parser for the Sybase engine. My
> plan
> > was to migrate our current BPEL 1.1 tests to BPEL 2.0, however I
> > think having a common set of BPEL acceptance tests in Ode would be a
> good
> > idea.
> >
> > I have not had a chance to look through the PXE contribution for BPEL
> > acceptance tests. What do folks think about merged BPEL acceptance tests
> as
> > a starting point?
> >
> > Lance
> >
> >
> > On 2/20/06, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There seems to have been an assumption that there should only be one
> > > orchestration/BPEL/workflow engine in the Ode project. So far I seem
> > > to be MrNegative repeatedly doubting whether this assumption is valid
> > > or useful so I just wanted to get feedback on peoples thoughts on
> > > this specific issue, particularly from the Sybase/PXE folks.
> > >
> > > Here's my personal take:
> > >
> > > Right now today the Sybase code is geared more towards being a
> > > generic orchestration/workflow engine that today supports BPEL 1.1
> > > and can support other orchestration/workflow languages and could be
> > > ported to 2.0 without huge amounts of effort. PXE is specifically
> > > geared towards BPEL 2.0 as its primary design which could well be a
> > > good thing if you want a BPEL 2.0 engine - though I do find the PXE
> > > code harder go grok  - but maybe that's because its more BPEL 2.0
> > > specific.
> > >
> > > In summary they are both very different, solving things in different
> > > ways - I see value in both codebases as they are today. I also see
> > > areas they can collaborate (as PaulB mentioned recently). So we can
> > > definitely have code reuse across the two engines. However I honestly
> > > have no idea if we can ever merge the two codebases into one - the
> > > experiment has some merit for sure but it could be too big a leap.
> > >
> > > Putting that ServiceMix hat on again; we certainly have a use case for
> > >
> > > * a general purpose orchestration engine that we can use from Java
> code
> > > * BPEL 1.1
> > > * BPEL 2.0
> > > * any new XML language that comes out in the orchestration/workflow
> > > space
> > >
> > > So both engines have immediate value to ServiceMix.
> > >
> > > Putting that Ode hat on again, my personal priorities on the ODE
> > > project are are to get both engines working well in their new Apache
> > > home, then looking to where we can reuse code & infrastructure across
> > > the two. But unifying the code into one engine isn't on my personal
> > > list of itches to scratch (and I've lots of itches :). I'm perfectly
> > > happy for them to stay separate and let reuse happen iteratively over
> > > time.
> > >
> > > Specifically to Sybase & PXE folks,  what are your thoughts?
> > >
> > > James
> > > -------
> > > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message