incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:44:04 GMT

I'm afraid I'm not as familiar with JBI as I probably should be (which is
to say not at all).  Would leveraging JBI to do Ode's heavy lifting
introduce a dependency on ServiceMix and/or JBI into Ode, or is it merely a
Java-based interface to BPEL, along the lines of JDBC or JNDI?


It's better to be hated for who you are
than loved for who you are not

Ian D. Stewart
Appl Dev Analyst-Advisory, DCS Automation
JPMorganChase Global Technology Infrastructure
Phone: (614) 244-2564
Pager: (888) 260-0078

                      James Strachan                                                     
                      <james.strachan@g        To: 
            >                cc:,,                      
                                               Subject:  Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept
donation of a business process engine  
                      02/15/2006 03:27          into the ServiceMix project)             
                      Please respond to                                                  

On 14 Feb 2006, at 21:38, Matthieu Riou wrote:
>> Also, I don't at all agree with your comparison of a BPEL Engine to
>> Geronimo.  I would compare it to the transaction manager within
>> Geronimo.  It's a discrete component, and we're not going to take the
>> best of 20 different projects to make a transaction manager, and I
>> don't see why we'd do the same to make a BPEL Engine.
> I've been trying to stay out of the discussion so far because I'm
> obviously partial (as a contributor on Agila BPEL), however I've seen
> this opinion voiced many time on these threads and can't ignore it
> anymore. Aaron it's not against you at all :)
> I've worked enough on BPEL implementing it to say, really strongly,
> that BPEL is very far from being a discrete component. You can see it
> as something "behind the scene" when you're working on a JBI
> container, however when you're interested in having an orchestration
> layer, you really don't. I don't think Oracle, IBM and many other
> editors would be so successful in selling their product if it was so
> discrete.
> You really don't need a JBI container if you're only dealing with web
> services interfaces.

Sure but it really helps. The JBI container does much of the heavy
lifting, letting the BPEL engine focus on its core feature -
correlation & orchestration and not worrying about all the other
stuff as well.

> Actually my view on this was that an ESB is just
> a communication bus around an orchestration layer. Quite the reverse
> opinion, isn't it? And I can't see any JBI implementation dealing with
> the BPEL grammar. Is the JBI implementation going to deal with
> compensation, correlation and partner links? I don't think so.

Agreed. But similarly - should a BPEL engine deal with different
integration components, different SOAP stacks, different WS-*
policies, monitoring, management, using HTTP or JMS or Jabber or file
systems, deployment, versioning, runtime management & monitoring of
each flow? The J2EE analogy is quite good; BPEL is a discrete service
but can reuse the container environment of JBI to avoid the BPEL
engine having to write a container, a deployment model and a suite of
'binding components' to different SOAP stacks, WS-* policies and
transports - together with all the runtime management.

BPEL engines and orchestration services were one of the primary
drivers of JSR 208 (JBI)

> What
> about editing BPEL process descriptions? And eventually, is the JBI
> implementation going to provide BAM interfaces?

Yes - BAM hooks at least.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message