continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Trygve Laugstøl <tryg...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Discuss] Workflow engine
Date Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:06:51 GMT
Erik Drolshammer skrev:
> Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
>> I tried to look at OSWorkflow a while back and found it to be pretty 
>> much not what we want. It is very user driven and it was very hard to 
>> get it to work in a way that Continuum needed it to.
>>
>> OSWorkflow is perfect for JIRA and the like, but not for server 
>> applications. My current bet is on the stuff from JBoss. ODE seems to 
>> be more on a BPEL level. ServiceMix used to have something for 
>> Java-based workflow composition (bean flow was it?) that looked pretty 
>> much what I was looking for at that time.
> 
> I used OSWorkflow on my previous project. Some comments:
> 
> 1. The book on OSWorkflow [1] is terrible, the online docs are worse

Definitely.

> 2. It works pretty well, but it is really low level. E.g. it does not 
> natively support loops, so this kind of functionality you must implement 
> yourself.

Right, this is because you end up using pre and post actions to do the 
routing.

> 3. It can definitively be used to do what you want, but it is not easy. 
> I don't know any better products though.
> 
> We evaluated JBoss Drools before choosing OSWorkflow, which worked well, 
> but was not suited for our use case. I think it was that it was more 
> useful as a rule engine than a general workflow-engine. If its features 
> are what you want, Drools seems to be a good product.

I mean jBPM[1], not Drools. One important aspect of using a proper 
workflow engine is to make the workflows pluggable so either downstream 
and/or users can customize the behaviour. Possibly even compose their 
own workflows with pieces of Continuum.

[1]: http://labs.jboss.com/jbossjbpm/

--
Trygve

Mime
View raw message