Interesting questions and answers. Let me try to ground it in what Architects want as opposed to what vendors suggest we want. And here I have my architect hat on as opposed to any of the other multitude that I wear.
See inline .... On 15 Jan 2006, at 06:02, Amit Gupta ((FSI)) wrote: > Patrick, > > Please read on for my comments on some of your questions:- > > > Does any other implementation provide JavaSnippet? > > > I think most BPEL implementation provide mechanism to include "Java" > Snippet. > Either directly as Java code embedded within BPEL process translated > to Java > code during "compilation" of BPEL - or as pluggable components (which > in > turn can be written in Java). > > Fiorao's BPEL, Oracle's (collaxa) BPEL, BEA's etc.. all provide > it...and I am > assuming that this is supported in other BPEL engines as well. > SRT> I am not interested in suppositions. Either it is portable and vendor neutral or it is not. SRT> Java in itself may well be a language I prefer to use but it does not mean as an architect SRT> I am free to use it. If I have a large .NET legacy what use are Java snippets to me? SRT> If we agree that the world is divided into two, the .NET route and the Java route then SRT> BPEL is not at all interesting if it does not provide me with interop and vendor SRT> neutrality. If it does not what does it give me that Java does not (and presumably CSharpe)? SRT> For example in Java I can write orchestrations and interact with Web Services. This is SRT> what BPEL is supposed to do. If it doesn't do it in vendor neutral way then what compelling SRT> reason, as an architect, do I have to use it? (You can regard that as a challenge). > > > What good is BPEL since every implementation seems to have multiple > > extensions? > > > This is an often asked question.. Here's how I look at it. > > BPEL is a language standard for Process "Orchestration" - not process > implementation. So while most vendors claiming BPEL compliance have > completely standard based process orchestration capabilities, the > implementation capabilities is where most of the extensions are. > > As such BPEL value is portable "Process Orchestration" - but not > necessarily portable "Process implementation" (unless each end-point > of the process is already Web-service enabled). SRT> What do we mean by "Process Orechstration"? Is it really no more than SRT> Composition of Web Services into new services such that the new service SRT> controls (as a broker does) interactions with the other services in order SRT> to realise a new service? If so again it is what do I get that Java (and CSharpe) SRT> do not provide me? SRT> If "Process Orchestration" does not mean this centralised brokering of interaction SRT> and the associated control then does it mean that BPEL can describe some sort SRT> of design blue print for interaction of a collection of services? This is something SRT> that BPEL cannot do in any scalable way. It breaks down after two services. If SRT> you have three services then the partner links and control become far too complex SRT> to get any real benefit because you have to describe from a single service SRT> perspective. It has not global model. It was never designed to have one and was SRT> designed for recursive Web Service composition, whereas WS-CDL was designed SRT> to describe (hence the D in CDL) the blue print interactions. SRT> BPEL is somewhat constrained in its execution model. It is centralised, hence the SRT> vendor implementation that exist today. As an architect I certainly want to describe SRT> interactions but I do not want to mandate a particular execution style. SRT> If anyone has clear referencable evidence that BPEL is better than Java I and many SRT> other would like to understand why? The only thing that makes BPEL attractive is the SRT> dollars behind it and not the technology nor the standard (in waiting) that underpin SRT> it. > > Thanks, > Amit Gupta > Fiorano Software Inc. > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Logan, Patrick D >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 2:15 AM >> Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] BPEL+ >> >> >> "IBM... has... Process Server (a BPEL+ engine)" >> >> I cannot tell for sure looking through some of the results of a google >> search. Is BPEL+ a standard beyond BPEL or just a name for IBM's >> extensions? >> >> There appear to be multiple implementations beyond IBM that mention >> BPEL+. Are they implementing the same extension? >> >> IBM's BPEL+ mentions JavaSnippet. Is this the same as BPEL/J? Does any >> other implementation provide JavaSnippet? >> >> What good is BPEL since every implementation seems to have multiple >> extensions? >> >> Are there any non-trivial in-production orchestrations that are >> represented as pure BPEL? >> >> Are there any reported cases of a team moving BPEL representations >> from >> one implementation to another beyond the trivial? >> >> Thanks >> -Patrick >> >> >> >> >> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS >> >> ▪ Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web. >> >> ▪ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> ▪ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of >> Service. >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
