On 16 Feb 2006, at 23:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James,
I'm afraid I'm not as familiar with JBI as I probably should be
(which is
to say not at all). Would leveraging JBI to do Ode's heavy lifting
introduce a dependency on ServiceMix and/or JBI into Ode, or is it
merely a
Java-based interface to BPEL, along the lines of JDBC or JNDI?
You'd be adding a *optional* dependency to the JBI standard (JSR 208)
(there's no reason why you couldn't support other techniques)...
http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=208
think of it as a bit like the JMS API for working with BPEL engines,
integration services or any WSDL defined MEP. The use of JBI is
twofold: you can use JBI (as an optional module) inside Ode to
perform all the message exchanges - avoiding the need of Ode to worry
about different SOAP stacks, transports, transactions, QoS together
with building your own mini-application server into the BPEL engine
etc. Or you can use JBI to invoke and interact with a BPEL engine if
you are some application or integration component that wishes to
reuse BPEL.
Its a little like integrating JMS or JDBC; once you've a JBI
integration point, there is a large range of providers you can then
use; in terms of JBI container (ServiceMix, Petals, OpenESB,
commercial vendors like Sonic etc) as well as integration services
like BPEL engines (Ode, maybe jBPM or Oracles' etc) and integration
components. (e.g. these are the JBI components available in
ServiceMix right now...
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Components
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Routing
So Ode could have other integration points too though - its just that
JBI should be the first and foremost connector, since its standards
based and already provides integration to the widest range of
different services and binding components.
James
Thanks,
Ian
It's better to be hated for who you are
than loved for who you are not
Ian D. Stewart
Appl Dev Analyst-Advisory, DCS Automation
JPMorganChase Global Technology Infrastructure
Phone: (614) 244-2564
Pager: (888) 260-0078
James Strachan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
general@incubator.apache.org
mail.com> cc:
dev@geronimo.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Let's
rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine
02/15/2006 03:27 into the ServiceMix
project)
AM
Please respond to
dev
On 14 Feb 2006, at 21:38, Matthieu Riou wrote:
Also, I don't at all agree with your comparison of a BPEL Engine to
Geronimo. I would compare it to the transaction manager within
Geronimo. It's a discrete component, and we're not going to take
the
best of 20 different projects to make a transaction manager, and I
don't see why we'd do the same to make a BPEL Engine.
I've been trying to stay out of the discussion so far because I'm
obviously partial (as a contributor on Agila BPEL), however I've seen
this opinion voiced many time on these threads and can't ignore it
anymore. Aaron it's not against you at all :)
I've worked enough on BPEL implementing it to say, really strongly,
that BPEL is very far from being a discrete component. You can see it
as something "behind the scene" when you're working on a JBI
container, however when you're interested in having an orchestration
layer, you really don't. I don't think Oracle, IBM and many other
editors would be so successful in selling their product if it was so
discrete.
You really don't need a JBI container if you're only dealing with web
services interfaces.
Sure but it really helps. The JBI container does much of the heavy
lifting, letting the BPEL engine focus on its core feature -
correlation & orchestration and not worrying about all the other
stuff as well.
Actually my view on this was that an ESB is just
a communication bus around an orchestration layer. Quite the reverse
opinion, isn't it? And I can't see any JBI implementation dealing
with
the BPEL grammar. Is the JBI implementation going to deal with
compensation, correlation and partner links? I don't think so.
Agreed. But similarly - should a BPEL engine deal with different
integration components, different SOAP stacks, different WS-*
policies, monitoring, management, using HTTP or JMS or Jabber or file
systems, deployment, versioning, runtime management & monitoring of
each flow? The J2EE analogy is quite good; BPEL is a discrete service
but can reuse the container environment of JBI to avoid the BPEL
engine having to write a container, a deployment model and a suite of
'binding components' to different SOAP stacks, WS-* policies and
transports - together with all the runtime management.
BPEL engines and orchestration services were one of the primary
drivers of JSR 208 (JBI)
What
about editing BPEL process descriptions? And eventually, is the JBI
implementation going to provide BAM interfaces?
Yes - BAM hooks at least.
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Publish+Subscribe+Routing
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
