tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25178118.post1025300962725460007..comments2009-04-18T22:09:37.743-05:00John Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13852313153136272800noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25178118.post-40464159244329837122009-04-18T22:09:00.000-05:002009-04-18T22:09:00.000-05:00You may be right Tom... but I think if we came up with a "standard" API then it should be relatively straight forward for each of the Process Engine vendors (assuming that the Process Virtual Machine doesn't destroy all competitors) to figure out a way to utilize "Process Aware" applications.<br /><br />In general, I think it boils down to a wider awareness that "doing something" (like making reservations) often is part of a larger process. If we can get more programmers thinking along these lines I think we'll come up with some pretty sweet solutions.<br /><br />-JohnJohn T. Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13852313153136272800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25178118.post-54217122686333188992009-04-18T14:43:00.000-05:002009-04-18T14:43:00.000-05:00I think the Process Virtual Machine is what you're looking for :-)<br /><br /><A HREF="http://docs.jboss.com/jbpm/v4.0/javadocs/org/jbpm/activity/ActivityBehaviour.html" REL="nofollow">http://docs.jboss.com/jbpm/v4.0/javadocs/org/jbpm/activity/ActivityBehaviour.html</A>jPDL will be based on it and users will be able to plug in their own activities quite easily.<br /><br />Standardized an API like this would be great. But I think that will always imply that we need to standardize the runtime process state datastructures. I assume that the process engines are too different in their runtime datastructures to make it happen.<br /><br />regards, tom.Tom Baeyenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03067067751334471585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25178118.post-4123143594205055542009-04-17T21:48:00.000-05:002009-04-17T21:48:00.000-05:00Scott,<br /><br />Duh! :-)<br /><br />Let's flesh out all the interfaces that we'd expect - for example we know that the Process Manager can cancel a task before it's complete (time out, message event,etc.).<br /><br />Should be a piece of cake for guys as smart as us :-)<br /><br />-JohnJohn T. Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13852313153136272800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25178118.post-6405618230821618692009-04-17T16:20:00.000-05:002009-04-17T16:20:00.000-05:00John- <br /><br />love the idea (making apps process aware), and I bet we could even define some interfaces for applications around activities that we could publish - if you implement the interface, then bpm vendors will have an easy(easier) time connecting with you. <br /><br />1. the start/finish notification interface<br />2. a more robust start with data and callback interface (allowing the caller to pass a starting payload and receive a callback upon completion). <br />3. extended interfaces that aren't as critical but that would be interesting (progress, etc). <br /><br />I bet if we defined useful interfaces for these things... well heck, people could implement them :) (or, customers/consultants could layer them on top of existing off the shelf software). <br /><br />scott / sfrancis@bp-3.com<br />www.bp-3.com/blogsscotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15621937303252334987noreply@blogger.com