Home » Archived » Java WorkFlow Tooling (JWT) » [Metamodel] Initial metamodel uploaded
|
| Re: [Metamodel] Initial metamodel uploaded [message #24325 is a reply to message #24284] |
Fri, 23 February 2007 10:23   |
 Wojciech Zurek
Messages: 8
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi Florian,
I had a quick look into the metamodel as it is proposed by AgiPro, and my
impression is that it is just another language invented for descrabing
business processes. There is already too menay such languages and inventing
new one is not exactly what we need in JWT.
I do understand that it is probably possible to generate XPDL or even BPEL
from this model, but it is also possible to generate this model or BPEL from
XPDL, or other way around - so why this model is better?
The biggest problem to solve I can see for this project is (on the
lowest/model level) is find a way to roundtrip between the standard models -
if this is even possible. If it is not possible, or in addition, the project
should provide some toolbox for working with these standard workflow models.
Best regards,
Wojciech
"Florian Lautenbacher" <lautenbacher@informatik.uni-augsburg.de> wrote in
message news:a29430ced41b51590fff93e5ec1a53bf$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Hi all,
>
> please find under http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/JWT_Metamodel a
> document describing the current meta-model of AgilPro. This document shall
> be the basis for discussion on the elements which are needed in the
> meta-model in order to have all aspects for
> - XPDL code generation
> - a view that business managers can understand
> - all technical aspects for executing a workflow
> - maybe a BPMN display
>
> Please have a look at the document and provide me/us with any feedback
> what you think is missing, should be changed, etc. Especially if you are
> (or you think you should be) in a working group (as Marc wrote yesterday)
> which needs to have background on the meta-model.
> For more examples about the concrete syntax and some examples, please
> refer to www.agilpro.eu/ and have a look at the examples and flash movies
> there.
>
> This document is thought as an initial push for discussions about the
> meta-model. So please don't hesitate ;-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Florian
>
|
|
| |
| Re: [Metamodel] Initial metamodel uploaded [message #24408 is a reply to message #24367] |
Fri, 23 February 2007 12:40 |
Wojciech Zurek
Messages: 8
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Why do you think that we can avoid interoperability problems if we invent
new language?
The other thing is that probably all current standards were starting exactly
the same - XPDL and BPEL and others they were trying to find out what is
really important and really needed for process execution and/or
vizualization- and trying to store it somehow so the engines/tools could map
their behaviours to it.
(don't get me wrong, I'm not very against new meta-model, but I just want to
discuss it as I am not very convinced either)
Best regards,
Wojciech
"Florian Lautenbacher" <lautenbacher@informatik.uni-augsburg.de> wrote in
message news:6138b59bb43164046e1b9300d8f8de43$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Hi Wojciech,
>
> you are right, this is just another language / meta-model for describing
> business processes. I agree, that JWT should provide some toolbox for
> working with the existing workflow models. But therefore we need one basic
> meta-model where all important informations for workflow execution can be
> stored and all other existing languages can be mapped to. The AgilPro
> meta-model is just a starting point for discussion what really is needed
> for workflow execution. Surely, we could simply take the XPDL meta-model
> or the BPDM or UML or BPEL, etc. but then it will be hard to get the
> interoperability between the chosen language and the other ones.
> Therefore in our first working step we need to analyze the requirements we
> have for a meta-model. If there are many things in AgilPro that can be
> removed, okay, but first we need to gather the requirements and then we
> can discuss how the "interoperability meta-model" should look like in my
> opinion.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Florian
>
|
|
|
| Re: [Metamodel] Initial metamodel uploaded [message #24449 is a reply to message #24408] |
Mon, 26 February 2007 08:30 |
Florian Lautenbacher
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Wojciech,
I don't think that we can avoid interoperability problems with the
creation of a new language. But the focus of JWT is to get an
interoperability between several process engines and graphical
representations. Therefore, at the beginning we should evaluate the
existing languages such as XPDL, jPDL, WSBPEL, BPMN, BPDM, UML2, etc.
which are currently used by differenz vendors and engines in order to get
an overview. Then, we can discuss what aspects are needed in our
meta-model to cover the most important aspects of these languages.
I don't say that the meta-model from AgilPro is already perfect! Surely
not! But, during its creation we analyzed UML, ARIS and BPMN and focused
on the parts that were most interesting as we thought. I just want to
avoid that we are simply using for example the XPDL meta-model and then
can't work with other process engines anymore.
What would be the details from XPDL that are a MUST for our meta-model?
Best regards,
Florian
Wojciech Zurek wrote:
> Why do you think that we can avoid interoperability problems if we invent
> new language?
> The other thing is that probably all current standards were starting exactly
> the same - XPDL and BPEL and others they were trying to find out what is
> really important and really needed for process execution and/or
> vizualization- and trying to store it somehow so the engines/tools could map
> their behaviours to it.
> (don't get me wrong, I'm not very against new meta-model, but I just want to
> discuss it as I am not very convinced either)
> Best regards,
> Wojciech
> "Florian Lautenbacher" <lautenbacher@informatik.uni-augsburg.de> wrote in
> message news:6138b59bb43164046e1b9300d8f8de43$1@www.eclipse.org...
>> Hi Wojciech,
>>
>> you are right, this is just another language / meta-model for describing
>> business processes. I agree, that JWT should provide some toolbox for
>> working with the existing workflow models. But therefore we need one basic
>> meta-model where all important informations for workflow execution can be
>> stored and all other existing languages can be mapped to. The AgilPro
>> meta-model is just a starting point for discussion what really is needed
>> for workflow execution. Surely, we could simply take the XPDL meta-model
>> or the BPDM or UML or BPEL, etc. but then it will be hard to get the
>> interoperability between the chosen language and the other ones.
>> Therefore in our first working step we need to analyze the requirements we
>> have for a meta-model. If there are many things in AgilPro that can be
>> removed, okay, but first we need to gather the requirements and then we
>> can discuss how the "interoperability meta-model" should look like in my
>> opinion.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Florian
>>
|
|
|
| Re: [Metamodel] Initial metamodel uploaded [message #24530 is a reply to message #24449] |
Mon, 26 February 2007 11:41 |
Wojciech Zurek
Messages: 8
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi Florian,
I think inventing new language is a dead end, and it will not improve
interoperability. Instead, we should focus (exactly as you said) on core
features of the business processes, but then just choose the language that
is most suitable (or even subset of it), and write mapping for other
standards that we consider important.
Probably the standard we will choose will not fulfil all our needs (from
graphical, execution or import/export side), so we should extend the format
(most standards supports extensions) and later try to include this
extensions in the next version of the standard. Things should evolve not be
reinvented.
I had a bit closer look on the AgiPro model. And it is a good, clean design
and it covers most of the areas in business processes I know. Problems are
as usual with details... and when we will fix all of them we probably end up
with something very similar to jPDL or XPDL2 or UML2 or other existing
meta-model.
Some of the details that need to be revisited:
* definition of the performer of the activity
* data types - usuall processes can have private complex data
* data mapping - especially mapping between two complex types
* applications - it just cannot be limited to java
* simulation data - it needs much, much more there in order to support even
simplest simulation
* extensability - how to preserve engine/tool specyfic data in the model? do
we need to do that?
* flow - it looks right, but I am not sure. In BPMN you can have
decision/join or parallel split on any activity. Is that the same here?
Other think more on the technical side, the model seams to include graphical
information (in the way like XPDL does) but it probably should not. It
should be down to the editor what information is needed and how it is
stored. We probably should follow GMF way of doing that.
What is in this model that is not available in the other meta-models?
Wojtek
"Florian Lautenbacher" <lautenbacher@informatik.uni-augsburg.de> wrote in
message news:1ef76d2444eac946b219e4f0828433b6$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Hi Wojciech,
>
> I don't think that we can avoid interoperability problems with the
> creation of a new language. But the focus of JWT is to get an
> interoperability between several process engines and graphical
> representations. Therefore, at the beginning we should evaluate the
> existing languages such as XPDL, jPDL, WSBPEL, BPMN, BPDM, UML2, etc.
> which are currently used by differenz vendors and engines in order to get
> an overview. Then, we can discuss what aspects are needed in our
> meta-model to cover the most important aspects of these languages.
> I don't say that the meta-model from AgilPro is already perfect! Surely
> not! But, during its creation we analyzed UML, ARIS and BPMN and focused
> on the parts that were most interesting as we thought. I just want to
> avoid that we are simply using for example the XPDL meta-model and then
> can't work with other process engines anymore.
>
> What would be the details from XPDL that are a MUST for our meta-model?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Florian
>
> Wojciech Zurek wrote:
>
>> Why do you think that we can avoid interoperability problems if we invent
>> new language?
>
>> The other thing is that probably all current standards were starting
>> exactly the same - XPDL and BPEL and others they were trying to find out
>> what is really important and really needed for process execution and/or
>> vizualization- and trying to store it somehow so the engines/tools could
>> map their behaviours to it.
>
>> (don't get me wrong, I'm not very against new meta-model, but I just want
>> to discuss it as I am not very convinced either)
>
>> Best regards,
>> Wojciech
>
>> "Florian Lautenbacher" <lautenbacher@informatik.uni-augsburg.de> wrote in
>> message news:6138b59bb43164046e1b9300d8f8de43$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>> Hi Wojciech,
>>>
>>> you are right, this is just another language / meta-model for describing
>>> business processes. I agree, that JWT should provide some toolbox for
>>> working with the existing workflow models. But therefore we need one
>>> basic meta-model where all important informations for workflow execution
>>> can be stored and all other existing languages can be mapped to. The
>>> AgilPro meta-model is just a starting point for discussion what really
>>> is needed for workflow execution. Surely, we could simply take the XPDL
>>> meta-model or the BPDM or UML or BPEL, etc. but then it will be hard to
>>> get the interoperability between the chosen language and the other ones.
>>> Therefore in our first working step we need to analyze the requirements
>>> we have for a meta-model. If there are many things in AgilPro that can
>>> be removed, okay, but first we need to gather the requirements and then
>>> we can discuss how the "interoperability meta-model" should look like in
>>> my opinion.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Florian
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [Metamodel] Initial metamodel uploaded [message #24571 is a reply to message #24530] |
Mon, 26 February 2007 12:18 |
Florian Lautenbacher
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Wojciech,
concerning your questions about the details of AgilPro which should be
revisited:
> * definition of the performer of the activity
This is currently modelled with the Role element that is part of the
Organisation. A Role is a ReferenceableElement and can henceforth be
attached to each action. Perhaps it might be important to define
different roles for the performer and for people involved (somebody who
gives the instructions, is responsible for, working for, etc.).
> * data types - usually processes can have private complex data
Yes, you are right. We created some initial data tpyes like String,
Integer, etc. but mostly we use the "Data" element for complex data,
where we don't specify how exactly this element is structured (only
which data type it has and which information type).
> * data mapping - especially mapping between two complex types
Currently there is only a 1:1 mapping between data types, not like in
BPEL where you can define the whole complex type and then map parts of
the first complex type with parts of the second.
> * applications - it just cannot be limited to java
This is a first part, yes. I agree with you that it should not be
limited to Java. One solution could be to have an abstract "Application"
class with several concrete sub-classes. One for Java, one for Web
Services, one for .NET, etc.
> * simulation data - it needs much, much more
Here, you are the specialist. I don't know much about this kind of
simulation yet.
> * extensability - how to preserve engine/tool specific data in the
model? do we need to do that?
Maybe yes, depends on the framework that will be created in the WAM part
of JWT for executing and monitoring a process.
> * flow - it looks right, but I am not sure. In BPMN you can have
> decision/join or parallel split on any activity. Is that the same here?
I think so. This part is similar to UML2 Activity Diagrams. You can have
DecisionNode and MergeNode for alternative flows and SplitNode /
JoinNode for parallel flows. How exactly is the decision/split ON an
activity in BPMN?
> the model seams to include graphical information (in the way like XPDL
> does)
You are also right, here. This is currently used only for the graphical
display and is surely not interesting for the Meta-model itself and
should be part of the editor.
> What is in this model that is not available in the other meta-models?
As already mentioned above this model is principially similar to UML2
Activity Diagrams. There we don't have applications, data or a better
description of roles than available in swimlanes. We tried to focus on
the process and added some functional descriptions like e.g. in ARIS.
But, currently there is no detailed comparison between this approach and
the other standards. I am currently working on that and will put a
document on the wiki about this topic, soon.
Best regards,
Florian
|
|
|
| Re: [Metamodel] Initial metamodel uploaded [message #24937 is a reply to message #24571] |
Wed, 14 March 2007 14:27 |
Marc Dutoo
Messages: 71
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Wojciech and Florian
I think we're not that far from each other. On a global point,
re-wording what was said at the Kickoff Meeting :
Starting from a metamodel close to the AgilPro metamodel has several
advantages, including being able to tap into a whole host of features
that AgilPro already provides (eclipse-based, emf model, modeling
features... etc.). I'm not really into rewriting everything from
scratch, and I agree with you that we should not try to reinvent the
wheel ; and for these very reasons and the fact that we've got this code
and expertise on it I'd give the advice to use it as a base.
Moreover, I'd rather have a working proof of concept of genericity that
we could use to test use cases, receive feedback and preview the wam
than an "under development" cathedral.
So Wojciech, that's not like we're trying to reinvent the wheel, it has
already been reinvented (quite nicely at that, according to Fabrice and
Miguel) by our german friends ^^ And what's in question is rather how to
adapt it to fit every need of JWT's goals - which is a step we would
have to pass through anyway.
Now, your list of concerns is very much interesting in this light. Here
are some more comments of mine about them :
Florian Lautenbacher wrote:
> Hi Wojciech,
>
> concerning your questions about the details of AgilPro which should be
> revisited:
>
> > * definition of the performer of the activity
>
> This is currently modelled with the Role element that is part of the
> Organisation. A Role is a ReferenceableElement and can henceforth be
> attached to each action. Perhaps it might be important to define
> different roles for the performer and for people involved (somebody who
> gives the instructions, is responsible for, working for, etc.).
That's one thing of identifying the role in the context of the workflow,
that's another to model the actual users and groups that will have to be
mapped and / or chosen to fit them. What does model these user and group
concepts (ex. coming from an LDAP, an OS etc.) ? (Is that what you were
saying, Wojciech ?)
>
> > * data types - usually processes can have private complex data
>
> Yes, you are right. We created some initial data tpyes like String,
> Integer, etc. but mostly we use the "Data" element for complex data,
> where we don't specify how exactly this element is structured (only
> which data type it has and which information type).
This is important, we should at least know how we will do that. What
would be the easiest standard-inspired mapping to plug there ? Maybe
BPEL-inspired WSDL types ?
>
> > * data mapping - especially mapping between two complex types
>
> Currently there is only a 1:1 mapping between data types, not like in
> BPEL where you can define the whole complex type and then map parts of
> the first complex type with parts of the second.
What are the drawbacks ? Can't this be worked around by merely using the
"maximum complexity" type everywhere ?
>
> > * applications - it just cannot be limited to java
>
> This is a first part, yes. I agree with you that it should not be
> limited to Java. One solution could be to have an abstract "Application"
> class with several concrete sub-classes. One for Java, one for Web
> Services, one for .NET, etc.
OK for me, let me add the possibility of scripting languages.
This would in turn need for the runtime engine to be able to execute
these "Applications" (which could be done through native interfaces
linking, web services, REST, CORBA, DCOM etc. implemented at runtime in
Java or anything else).
One important feature of using engines in the "real world" is their own
application engines, and notably their own scripting engines. Being able
to model them would be a great asset. Your idea ?
>
> > * simulation data - it needs much, much more
>
> Here, you are the specialist. I don't know much about this kind of
> simulation yet.
Hmm... maybe we'd need some definition of what we mean by "simulation"
first.
>
> > * extensability - how to preserve engine/tool specific data in the
> model? do we need to do that?
>
> Maybe yes, depends on the framework that will be created in the WAM part
> of JWT for executing and monitoring a process.
Yes, I think this as to do with Applications and ApplicationProviders as
seen up there. I recon it is potentially harmful for genericity, so we
have to draw a clear line between what ApplicationProviders are generic
and those who are not. Let's dream - maybe even allow a way to
"repackage" portable ApplicationProviders so to be able to execute jPDL
script on Bonita ;)
>
> > * flow - it looks right, but I am not sure. In BPMN you can have
> > decision/join or parallel split on any activity. Is that the same here?
>
> I think so. This part is similar to UML2 Activity Diagrams. You can have
> DecisionNode and MergeNode for alternative flows and SplitNode /
> JoinNode for parallel flows. How exactly is the decision/split ON an
> activity in BPMN?
Anyone ?
>
> > the model seams to include graphical information (in the way like XPDL
> > does)
>
> You are also right, here. This is currently used only for the graphical
> display and is surely not interesting for the Meta-model itself and
> should be part of the editor.
Is there any way to draw a clear line between the two models, or do they
need to be separated "at birth" ? Some EMF / GMF magic, Etienne ?
>
> > What is in this model that is not available in the other meta-models?
>
> As already mentioned above this model is principially similar to UML2
> Activity Diagrams. There we don't have applications, data or a better
> description of roles than available in swimlanes. We tried to focus on
> the process and added some functional descriptions like e.g. in ARIS.
> But, currently there is no detailed comparison between this approach and
> the other standards. I am currently working on that and will put a
> document on the wiki about this topic, soon.
I liked what I've seen about this document ;)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Florian
Regards
Marc
|
|
|
| Re: [Metamodel] Initial metamodel uploaded [message #24973 is a reply to message #24937] |
Wed, 14 March 2007 16:53 |
Wojciech Zurek
Messages: 8
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
I know that it was reinvented.
What companies are using it? How big user-base does it have? What was the
biggest process written in this language that was actually used by some
users? Maybe I am wrong, and it is widely used and tested but I just don't
know...
The best thing that is about some standard model, is that you don't have an
option to change it. New models (or owned models) always require some
changes, and working with changing model... it just makes things delivered
later then expected.
Also (as I have mention in other post in the [Metamodel] XPDL thread) I am
not sure how to handle roundtrip between models, and how to handle vendor
specyfic extensions. Not sure if we need to, but it depends on the usecases
that we want to support.
Sorry to be so 'anty', but I don't want to repeat the same errors again and
want to be sure that we know where we are going and this is right direction.
Wojtek
"Marc Dutoo" <marc.dutoo@openwide.fr> wrote in message
news:45F80647.1080303@openwide.fr...
> Hi Wojciech and Florian
>
>
> I think we're not that far from each other. On a global point, re-wording
> what was said at the Kickoff Meeting :
>
> Starting from a metamodel close to the AgilPro metamodel has several
> advantages, including being able to tap into a whole host of features that
> AgilPro already provides (eclipse-based, emf model, modeling features...
> etc.). I'm not really into rewriting everything from scratch, and I agree
> with you that we should not try to reinvent the wheel ; and for these very
> reasons and the fact that we've got this code and expertise on it I'd give
> the advice to use it as a base.
>
> Moreover, I'd rather have a working proof of concept of genericity that we
> could use to test use cases, receive feedback and preview the wam than an
> "under development" cathedral.
>
> So Wojciech, that's not like we're trying to reinvent the wheel, it has
> already been reinvented (quite nicely at that, according to Fabrice and
> Miguel) by our german friends ^^ And what's in question is rather how to
> adapt it to fit every need of JWT's goals - which is a step we would have
> to pass through anyway.
>
>
> Now, your list of concerns is very much interesting in this light. Here
> are some more comments of mine about them :
>
> Florian Lautenbacher wrote:
>> Hi Wojciech,
>>
>> concerning your questions about the details of AgilPro which should be
>> revisited:
>>
>> > * definition of the performer of the activity
>>
>> This is currently modelled with the Role element that is part of the
>> Organisation. A Role is a ReferenceableElement and can henceforth be
>> attached to each action. Perhaps it might be important to define
>> different roles for the performer and for people involved (somebody who
>> gives the instructions, is responsible for, working for, etc.).
>
> That's one thing of identifying the role in the context of the workflow,
> that's another to model the actual users and groups that will have to be
> mapped and / or chosen to fit them. What does model these user and group
> concepts (ex. coming from an LDAP, an OS etc.) ? (Is that what you were
> saying, Wojciech ?)
>
>>
>> > * data types - usually processes can have private complex data
>>
>> Yes, you are right. We created some initial data tpyes like String,
>> Integer, etc. but mostly we use the "Data" element for complex data,
>> where we don't specify how exactly this element is structured (only which
>> data type it has and which information type).
>
> This is important, we should at least know how we will do that. What would
> be the easiest standard-inspired mapping to plug there ? Maybe
> BPEL-inspired WSDL types ?
>
>>
>> > * data mapping - especially mapping between two complex types
>>
>> Currently there is only a 1:1 mapping between data types, not like in
>> BPEL where you can define the whole complex type and then map parts of
>> the first complex type with parts of the second.
>
> What are the drawbacks ? Can't this be worked around by merely using the
> "maximum complexity" type everywhere ?
>
>>
>> > * applications - it just cannot be limited to java
>>
>> This is a first part, yes. I agree with you that it should not be limited
>> to Java. One solution could be to have an abstract "Application" class
>> with several concrete sub-classes. One for Java, one for Web Services,
>> one for .NET, etc.
>
> OK for me, let me add the possibility of scripting languages.
> This would in turn need for the runtime engine to be able to execute these
> "Applications" (which could be done through native interfaces linking, web
> services, REST, CORBA, DCOM etc. implemented at runtime in Java or
> anything else).
> One important feature of using engines in the "real world" is their own
> application engines, and notably their own scripting engines. Being able
> to model them would be a great asset. Your idea ?
>
>>
>> > * simulation data - it needs much, much more
>>
>> Here, you are the specialist. I don't know much about this kind of
>> simulation yet.
>
> Hmm... maybe we'd need some definition of what we mean by "simulation"
> first.
>
>>
>> > * extensability - how to preserve engine/tool specific data in the
>> model? do we need to do that?
>>
>> Maybe yes, depends on the framework that will be created in the WAM part
>> of JWT for executing and monitoring a process.
>
> Yes, I think this as to do with Applications and ApplicationProviders as
> seen up there. I recon it is potentially harmful for genericity, so we
> have to draw a clear line between what ApplicationProviders are generic
> and those who are not. Let's dream - maybe even allow a way to "repackage"
> portable ApplicationProviders so to be able to execute jPDL script on
> Bonita ;)
>
>>
>> > * flow - it looks right, but I am not sure. In BPMN you can have
>> > decision/join or parallel split on any activity. Is that the same
>> here?
>>
>> I think so. This part is similar to UML2 Activity Diagrams. You can have
>> DecisionNode and MergeNode for alternative flows and SplitNode / JoinNode
>> for parallel flows. How exactly is the decision/split ON an activity in
>> BPMN?
>
> Anyone ?
>
>>
>> > the model seams to include graphical information (in the way like XPDL
>> > does)
>>
>> You are also right, here. This is currently used only for the graphical
>> display and is surely not interesting for the Meta-model itself and
>> should be part of the editor.
>
> Is there any way to draw a clear line between the two models, or do they
> need to be separated "at birth" ? Some EMF / GMF magic, Etienne ?
>
>>
>> > What is in this model that is not available in the other meta-models?
>>
>> As already mentioned above this model is principially similar to UML2
>> Activity Diagrams. There we don't have applications, data or a better
>> description of roles than available in swimlanes. We tried to focus on
>> the process and added some functional descriptions like e.g. in ARIS.
>> But, currently there is no detailed comparison between this approach and
>> the other standards. I am currently working on that and will put a
>> document on the wiki about this topic, soon.
>
> I liked what I've seen about this document ;)
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Florian
>
> Regards
> Marc
|
|
|
| Re: [Metamodel] Initial metamodel uploaded [message #25254 is a reply to message #24973] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 08:28 |
Florian Lautenbacher
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Wojtek,
AgilPro is still under development. Nevertheless there are several
companies which are already working with it. Not the biggest one, but
the software was created for SMEs and there are many companies testing
it right now (the current download rate of 3,800 downloads shows that, too).
The biggest process written in this language had (to my knowledge) 20
different actions. But of course, it is also possible to create much
bigger processes (but, it might get confusing then). Henceforth, we are
currently working on a concept called "ActivityLinkNode" where one can
structure big processes into smaller ones. This will probably be
included in the next release or the release after that.
> The best thing that is about some standard model, is that you don't have an
> option to change it. New models (or owned models) always require some
> changes, and working with changing model... it just makes things delivered
> later then expected.
That's only one side of the coin: the other side is, that if you see
that there is a problem, you can't change it and a consortium can change
the standard in ways you don't like it, but you have to adapt your
modeler. Both ways (having his own meta-model and relying on a
'standard') have their advantages and disadvantages.
> Sorry to be so 'anty', but I don't want to repeat the same errors again and
> want to be sure that we know where we are going and this is right direction.
No, that's absolutely OK. Better we discuss these topics at the
beginning than having problems afterwards. But I also agree with Marc,
that we currently have a running solution and code contribution that we
can use - that's much better than starting in the middle of nowhere.
Best regards,
Florian
|
|
|
| Questions about AgilPro [message #25294 is a reply to message #25254] |
Tue, 20 March 2007 13:20 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: emmanuel.rias.bull.net
Hi Florian,
Sorry but i take the discussion about metamodel on the fly. So maybe i
will speak about things you have already discussed.
I have some question
Actually is it possible to generate XPDL from design ?
On which workflow provider do you test the deployment ?
Is it possible to install and test AgilPro ?
Thank you
Emmanuel
Florian Lautenbacher a écrit :
> Hi Wojtek,
>
> AgilPro is still under development. Nevertheless there are several
> companies which are already working with it. Not the biggest one, but
> the software was created for SMEs and there are many companies testing
> it right now (the current download rate of 3,800 downloads shows that,
> too).
> The biggest process written in this language had (to my knowledge) 20
> different actions. But of course, it is also possible to create much
> bigger processes (but, it might get confusing then). Henceforth, we are
> currently working on a concept called "ActivityLinkNode" where one can
> structure big processes into smaller ones. This will probably be
> included in the next release or the release after that.
>
>> The best thing that is about some standard model, is that you don't
>> have an option to change it. New models (or owned models) always
>> require some changes, and working with changing model... it just makes
>> things delivered later then expected.
>
> That's only one side of the coin: the other side is, that if you see
> that there is a problem, you can't change it and a consortium can change
> the standard in ways you don't like it, but you have to adapt your
> modeler. Both ways (having his own meta-model and relying on a
> 'standard') have their advantages and disadvantages.
>
>> Sorry to be so 'anty', but I don't want to repeat the same errors
>> again and want to be sure that we know where we are going and this is
>> right direction.
>
> No, that's absolutely OK. Better we discuss these topics at the
> beginning than having problems afterwards. But I also agree with Marc,
> that we currently have a running solution and code contribution that we
> can use - that's much better than starting in the middle of nowhere.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Florian
|
|
|
| Re: Questions about AgilPro [message #25335 is a reply to message #25294] |
Mon, 26 March 2007 07:36 |
Florian Lautenbacher
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Steve,
welcome on board of the JWT-project. It is good to hear that the project
is getting more and more resources from the different companies now! If I
can be of any assistance for setting up something, please don't hesitate
to contact me or the other project lead Marc Dutoo.
Emmanuel wrote that you already designed a plugin for workflows and for
the generation of XPDL? As you might have heard, we already got some
workgroups for the different details / parts of JWT and perhaps you are
interested in joining the XPDL and the meta-model working group. We are
discussing which parts are needed for a good workflow modeling tool (and
here your expertise is more than welcome!) and what aspects need to be
considered in order to generate XPDL (and again, it seems you are an
expert here!). Please find any more information and discussion on the JWT
newsgroups and Wiki (both are linked from the JWT website:
www.eclipse.org/jwt).
Best regards,
Florian
(answer from Steve:)
Marc and Florian:
Thank you for your kind words of welcome.
I inherited a stand-alone/webstart graphical XPDL editor.
In teh time I have been responsible for it, I have added numerous
enhancemants and converted it to an eclipse plugin.
I have downloaded the AgilPro LiMo application and have started to take a
look at it.
In our editor, which we call ProEd, the node topology pretty much mirrors
the XPDL structure.
What I am planning to do is to take AgilPro and try to model all the
things I know how to do with ProEd.
I will write up
The things I can't figure out how to model in AgilPro
The XPDL parameters that are needed
The places where I can model the concept, but the model topology is
substantially different than the same concept in ProEd. Since ProEd is
fairly congruent with the XPDL structure, this should highlight areas
where we will have to apply significant transformations to go back and
forth between the metamodel and XPDL.
any other observations I think are significant.
At the moment I am busy trying to resolve some glitch that appears to have
occurred whe we moved ProEd from our internal forge to ObjectWeb.
It is not behaving quite the same, so something got bolixed somewhere.
One observation on AgilPro:
The first time I installed it, I accepted the default installation
location of "C:/Program Files/AgilPro/LiMo"
It got about 2/3 of the way through the install and then complained it
could not find "C:/Program"
Apparently, something in the installer was having a problem with the space
in "Program Files".
I uninstalled and re-installed to "C:/AgilPro/LiMo" and the installation
completed successfully.
Are there tutorials or other documentation available in English?
I am looking forward to a rewarding challenge,
Steve
|
|
|
| Re: Questions about AgilPro [message #25375 is a reply to message #25335] |
Mon, 26 March 2007 07:36 |
Florian Lautenbacher
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Steve,
>>I inherited a stand-alone/webstart graphical XPDL editor.
In teh time I have been responsible for it, I have added numerous
enhancemants and converted it to an eclipse plugin.
Which frameworks were the tool based on? EMF, GEF, GMF or "simply" Draw2d,
etc.?
>>What I am planning to do is to take AgilPro and try to model all the things
I know how to do with ProEd.
I am curious what things can be done easily and where the problems in our
modeling language will be. Could you please be so kind and send your
comments to the newsgroup?
>>At the moment I am busy trying to resolve some glitch that appears to have
occurred whe we moved ProEd from our internal forge to ObjectWeb.
It is not behaving quite the same, so something got bolixed somewhere.
This is always the same. We time and again have the same problems with
AgilPro. Once you make a small change in one place you seem to have much
more problems on completely different places ;-)
>>The first time I installed it, I accepted the default installation location
of "C:/Program Files/AgilPro/LiMo"
It got about 2/3 of the way through the install and then complained it
could not find "C:/Program"
Okay, thanks for mentioning that. This didn't appear on my computer,
because I have a german notation and there it is "Programme" instead of
"Program Files" ;-) But we will repair that in the next version.
>>Are there tutorials or other documentation available in English?
Nearly all documents are available on SourceForge (but most of them are
not in the newest version). Just check them (howto-config in version
1.0.0.1). There is also a tutorial, but this is currently only available
in German. We will try to translate it for the next version, too.
>>I am looking forward to a rewarding challenge,
Me, too!
Best regards,
Florian
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Dec 26 20:00:25 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04390 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
