Re: AW: [jwt-dev] Re: Samples, BPMN-JWT transformation, new committers,

[Marc Dutoo <marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

I agree with you. We all promise to do it right in the future :)

Actually Loic could have committed the samples, but there is no JWT 
project for JWT4SOA or JWT2BPMN or ...


What about these subprojects :

jwt-bpmn for jwt to bpmn and vice versa transformations and their 
integration in jwt we, as well as a quick launch of STP BPMN ed

jwt-xpdl for jwt to xpdl (bonita version) transformation and their 
integration in jwt we

maybe a jwt-samples, to gather a common basic version of our 
interoperability & validation samples. Then these scripts could be copy 
and pasted by any interoperability project ex. jwt-bpmn and fine-tuned 
at will, but at the end the jwt-samples scripts would have to be updated 
in a consistent manner. This would ensure that a new interoperability 
feature won't break an existing one. Other ideas on samples and how to 
ensure format consistence, anyone ?

jwt-runtime-bonita for bonita integration as a jwt runtime. NB. this 
could also be put in the scorware private project, but I'd rather put it 
here so the whole JWT community can help and give inputs.

As for how JWT workflow model will have to be extended to support the 
bonita runtime there's nothing final yet, but why not add an EAnnotation 
mechanism just like BPMN so as to not require to change the model each 
time there is a new standard or engine supported ? Florian, Stéphane, 
your take on this ?

Regards
Marc

> By the way, did you read the PMC's comments on the two new committers on our
> project?:
> > > The PMC's comments were: I'm a little concerned by the +1 votes that read
> "as requested" - individual committers are required to be making up their
> own minds on whether to vote someone in, not just following a party line. I
> will assume that that is what you all have done. Please make sure that your
> voting comments in the future correctly reflect your opinions of the
> candidate. Thanks.
>
> I agree with him, that normally new committers should have developed some
> code, answered some bugs or did anything else, but I also see the problem
> when there is nobody to submit the code and you need to do all the things
> yourself... ;-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Florian
>
>
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Marc Dutoo [mailto:marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 
> > > 14. November 2007 19:30
> > > An: Stéphane DRAPEAU; Florian Lautenbacher
> > > Cc: Etienne Juliot
> > > Betreff: JWT to BPMN translation - first spec and samples
> > >
> > > Hello all
> > >
> > > Here is my first take on JWT to BPMN translation detailed spec and 
> > > samples.
> > > You'll find in this mail (content or attachments) :
> > >    * a first sample JWT process : transformation_sample_3_approval_frompp
> > >    * its translated STP BPMN files : 
> > > transformation_sample_3_approval_frompp (without annotations yet however)
> > >    * my analysis of JWT to BPMN translation, whose goal is to be the 
> > > basis
> > > of a translation algo. What about putting this on the wiki ?
> > >    * Florian's answers to some questions of mine, that could be the first
> > > step towards a "How to build processes in JWT" FAQ. What about putting 
> > > this
> > > on the wiki ?
> > >
> > > Next steps :
> > >    * MDU : adding annotations to the STP BPMN process (though how they 
> > > are
> > > obtained is already spec'd)
> > >    * MDU : completing my second sample, writing a third one
> > >    * everyone : sort out the last indecisions in translation behaviour 
> > > (see
> > > below first, and in attachments)
> > >    * SDR : work on the translation ^^
> > >    * FLA : look at all that, help out whenever it is useful (thanks for
> > > cleaning my process)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Marc
> > >
> > > PS indecisions to be closed out (see details in attached 
> > > SCOrWareJwtBpmn) :
> > >    * JWT eventHandler
> > >    * JWT Data mapping : this I left out for now. Its meaning and use 
> > > should
> > > be made clearer.
> > >    * at a lower level, about JWT events
> > >    * I do not agree with the Augsburg proposed mapping for pool & lane,
> > > rather "Pools represent participants, lane are for categorizing 
> > > activities".
> > >    * I do not agree with the Augsburg proposed mapping Application to
> > > special BPMN DataObjects
> > _______________________________________________
> > jwt-dev mailing list
> > jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev