syncope-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fabio Martelli <fabio.marte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Replace Activiti with Flowable?
Date Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:24:35 GMT
Hi Francesco, sorry for the late reply.
Flowable sounds really interesting. I agree on the pair of steps you 
proposed below.

+1 to move Apache Syncope in this direction.

Best regards,
F.

Il 21/02/2017 20:31, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
> Hi all,
> I have been recently made aware that many of the original developers 
> of Activiti (including the team leader Tijs Rademakers) started a new 
> fork, Flowable [1].
> The detailed reasons for forking can be read from [2] but, besides 
> these, I think we need to decide whether to stick with Activiti as our 
> predefined workflow engine, or if instead it is be the case to move to 
> Flowable.
>
> It seems that one of the main reasons behind the fork is the fact that 
> the original team wasn't able to cut out the new 6.0.0 release (which 
> is being worked since long time); the new team has recently published 
> 6.0.0 [3] and also a maintenance 5.22.0 [4] (which is the version we 
> are currently using, but from Activiti).
>
> Flowable 6 looks really interesting, especially for the cleaning and 
> the refactoring they made - which also solved the issue raised a while 
> ago in [5] about the Activiti Modeler license: it seems that the new 
> Flowable UI Modeler is completely AL 2.0 compliant; moreover, they 
> introduced some interesting support for multi-tenancy [6] which we can 
> leverage.
>
> I would propose to:
>
> 1. open an issue to make the 2.1 series (e.g. the current master
>    branch) work with Flowable 6, replacing Activiti
> 2. open an issue to provide an additional module for the 2.0 series
>    (e.g. the current 2_0_X branch), named workflow-flowable, mostly a
>    clone of workflow-activiti [7] but with different dependencies;
>    workflow-activiti will remain the default choice, but people could
>    switch to Flowable on their own deployments if they will
>
> WDYT?
> Regards.
>
> [1] http://www.flowable.org/
> [2] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/12/flowable-and-activiti.html
> [3] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2017/02/15/flowable-6.0.0-release.html
> [4] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/13/flowable-5.22.0-release.html
> [5] 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-439?focusedCommentId=13829912&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13829912
> [6] 
> http://forum.flowable.org/t/support-for-additional-multi-tenancy-models/175
> [7] https://github.com/apache/syncope/tree/2_0_X/core/workflow-activiti
>


-- 
Fabio Martelli
https://it.linkedin.com/pub/fabio-martelli/1/974/a44
http://blog.tirasa.net/author/fabio/index.html

Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/

Apache Syncope PMC
http://people.apache.org/~fmartelli/


Mime
View raw message