"Geir Magnusson Jr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The goal is to do BPM, not specifically BPEL. BPEL support is > certainly welcome, but should be a part of the overall project, not the > dominant focus. There's more to BPM than BPEL :)
Absolutely :). However, I think there's room in the WS project for an effort focused purely on implementing BPEL. BPEL is a key component of the WS-* stack and I for one would be happy to see a pure BPEL effort in Apache. > I think that bringing the two concepts together - workflow and WS > orchestration - would be a great goal :) So as a co-author of BPEL I have to say that that was indeed one of our objectives .. clearly we have failed at least by you :). In fact, IBM for one is moving its workflow product to support BPEL only and no other flow language. So workflow and WS orchestration are merged under BPEL. However, I am willing to accept that BPEL is by no means sufficient for all BPM scenarios and that there is indeed room for other work and implementations. I'm not trying to force Agila to abandon its model here .. So maybe the idea of a separate effort for BPEL is not a bad idea. Dims, what do you think? Geir, is the plan for Agila to go for a new TLP after incubation or go to one of the existing projects? Sanjiva.
