Ah, thanks, This one: https://lists.apache.org/thread/t3o842mbj03c57cg5yw3tmo25qf2br1t
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 6:15 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi toshiya > Search in *this* list drop legacy runtime in workflow. It is a proposal. > > El mié, 15 ene 2025, 9:47, Toshiya Kobayashi <[email protected]> > escribió: > > > Thanks, guys. > > > > I searched https://groups.google.com/g/kogito-development , but I cannot > > find the discussion about kjar. Anyway, Kogito hasn't supported kjar from > > the beginning, so it's a very old story. > > > > Having said that, options seem to be: > > > > A) Create a small subset of bpmn parser and engine (apart from the kogito > > bpmn code base), which aims at only ruleflow (Start, End, Rule, Gateway). > > > > pros: Users can use the existing bpmn editor to author ruleflow bpmn > > files. > > No need for a migration tool. > > > > cons: It will likely have some duplication with the kogito bpmn code > > base. > > > > B) Create a new feature to support ruleflow. e.g. only changing > > ruleflow-group with/without conditions. It may or may not be like .rf > file > > > > * Note: This option's pros and cons are ambiguous as the details are > not > > yet defined > > > > pros: The implementation may be smaller than bpmn > > > > cons: Developing a migration tool would require some effort. (or no > > migration tool) > > Developing an authoring UI tool would require some effort. (or no > > authoring tool) > > > > C) Just guide how to migrate ruleflow to drl and java code. > > > > pros: No additional development > > > > cons: Probably it's not possible to create a migration tool. It may > > require a large effort if a user has lots of ruleflows > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Toshiya > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 6:13 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Jason, > > > At the moment we dropped support for legacy runtime kjar is not a > > supported > > > scenario in workflow. > > > > > > El vie, 10 ene 2025, 17:24, Jason Porter <[email protected]> > > > escribió: > > > > > > > I think however this ends up being decided by this list, we should > > post a > > > > conclusion/example/summary/something to the [email protected] > > <mailto: > > > > [email protected]> list so anyone search that list can see the > > > results. > > > > > > > > Somewhat related to that, do we want to try to migrate people from > the > > > > Google Groups list to the users list now that 10.0.0 is released? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jason Porter > > > > Software Engineer > > > > He/Him/His > > > > > > > > IBM > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> > > > > Date: Friday, January 10, 2025 at 01:41 > > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSSION] ruleflow kjar use case > > > > Thank you, Toshiya, for bringing this up to ML. > > > > > > > > For context, I’d like to remember that there are no Drools or jBPM; > > both > > > > are components of Apache KIE. > > > > > > > > As of today, Apache KIE 10 supports kjar; Toshiya's example proves > > that. > > > > Therefore, this could be considered a bug, not a new use case. > > > > > > > > Enrique, regarding parity between runtimes, it’s not necessary to > > provide > > > > the same level of feature support for all of them, so the scope of > rule > > > > flow could be narrowed. > > > > > > > > What I believe we can’t do is be dysfunctional and force drops of > major > > > > features after a major release without a proper heads-up or an > > > alternative > > > > path. > > > > > > > > - > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 12:10 AM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi toshiya > > > > > > > > > > Kjar is not supported in workflow as the main focus is codegen. > > > > > Supporting in memory compilation would lead us to support two > > different > > > > > runtimes and integration with drools. > > > > > At this point it might be working because the legacy runtime is > still > > > > there > > > > > but any attempt to support this in kogito will get pushed back as > we > > > are > > > > > removing thr old runtime therefore kjar wont work. There are > several > > > > > reasons for it. From how big the effort would be to parity features > > in > > > > both > > > > > runtimes. > > > > > So the answer is no. We should not. > > > > > > > > > > El vie, 10 ene 2025, 4:20, Toshiya Kobayashi < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > Since Drools 8, in other words, since jBPM was moved into Kogito, > > the > > > > > > ruleflow (drl + bpmn) kjar use case has been dropped, because > > Kogito > > > > > > doesn't support kjar. A user is facing a migration problem ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://kie.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/232677-drools/topic/Errors.20when.20moving.20from.20last.20Drools.207.20release.20to.20drools.208 > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > > > > The combinations may sound confusing. > > > > > > > > > > > > - drl + bpmn in kogito service is supported. (See > > > > process-quarkus-example > > > > > > in incubator-kie-kogito-examples) > > > > > > - drl in kjar is supported (See kie-maven-plugin in > > > > incubator-kie-drools) > > > > > > - drl + bpmn in kjar is the topic of this thread > > > > > > > > > > > > I created an example with KIE 10.0.0 + drl + bpmn + kjar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tkobayas/kiegroup-examples/tree/master/Ex-ruleflow-10.0.0 > > > > > > (Adding org.kie.kogito:jbpm-bpmn2 dependency) > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > mvn clean install -DskipTests > > > > > > mvn test > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to work fine so far. (It has an issue with "import" > > > handling, > > > > > but > > > > > > I worked around it using FQCN. It's another story...) > > > > > > > > > > > > Having said that, shall we revitalize the ruleflow kjar use case? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think of these points: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Confirm the supported scope : No persistence. Limited nodes > > > (Start, > > > > > End, > > > > > > Rule, Gateway?) > > > > > > 2. Consult jbpm developers because the new jbpm has been targeted > > > only > > > > > for > > > > > > kogito service use cases (= requires quarkus or springboot, and > > > depends > > > > > on > > > > > > codegen. Am I correct?). Any caveats to support kjar? > > > > > > 3. Create test cases in kogito-runtimes? > > > > > > > > > > > > Especially, about 2... Any concern about supporting kjar with > jbpm > > (= > > > > > > org.kie.kogito:jbpm-bpmn2)? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Toshiya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
