Talk:Business Process Execution Language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Updates on 2/19
Added more information that might not get included in the final BPEL spec. I thought this information was important in understanding BPEL so I added it to the wiki. I also added some statements to help clarify the concept of Abstract processes and the relationship to executable processes.
I was doing research for BPEL engines and I came one called BizZyme. Has anyone heard of this? www.creativescience.com
[edit] BizTalk
Isn't Biztalk a BPEL engine?70.18.196.34 13:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, BizTalk Server 2004 added a BPEL import/export capability - I added this to the page.
[edit] WS-BPEL
Since the name of the standard has changed, shouldn't this page be at least cross-referenced with WS-BPEL? Clicking the WS-BPEL link on the page redirects to the same page.
[edit] Borland Together
Borland Together 2006 also provides eclipse plugin for GUI business model design and BPEL generation --The plugin has been added, this section can be removed.
[edit] Intersting take
"As numerous "small" programming languages already existed (e.g., C, C#, and Java), computer scientists felt no need to introduce another."
Huh? C, C# and Java are themselves recent developments, not to mention Ruby, Python, Perl, Clean, etc. etc., all of which were either introduced in the last 10 years or so, or have at least seen dramatic uptake. Further, Java 1.5 is a significantly different beast from Java 1.4, which itself is different from 1.3, etc. It seems unlikely that any of these will be seen as the last word.
I'm going to change this to say that while there are many "programming in the small" languages, there weren't many for "programming in the large". While I'm at it, I'll change "realization" to "notion" in the previous text. Given that "large" languages are at present much less widely deployed than "small" ones, it remains to be seen whether new languages are required (but that depends in part on what you call a "language" as opposed to, say, a "data model".) -Dmh 19:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spam ?
Why is the page tagged as spam ? I only see legitimate links in the External links section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.88.57.15 (talk • contribs) .
- Agreed. I'm doing research on BPEL and workflow engines at the moment, and every one of those external links seems to be to unbiased, useful information. I removed the tag. Someone's likely to sue me over that. ;) --Kintar 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- The tag was added before the list of BPEL "engines" was split into its own article. With that spam magnent gone, there really wasn't a need for the spam tag, so I'll hire you a lawyer if anyone sues you... :) There's still probably more links than is needed - this isn't supposed to be a link directory per WP:EL - but I am unqualified to determine which links are more helpful than the others. None of them seem to be spam, though. Thanks for zapping the tag. Kuru talk 22:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Is there still a concern about spam on the front page? We can list all of the links here and review them for content and purpose - but I'm not in favor of having a huge maintenance tag at the top of the article. I'd prefer the stardard inline "please don't add links without discussing them on the talk page first", but adding the spam tag at the top is a little excessive - the article is just not going to be that big of a target without the "engines" list. Kuru talk 14:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- There is as far as I can tell currently no spam, but the tag as I understand it is more more about the likelyhood of the article being spammed. It's a maintenance tag warning editors and users to watch out that this particular article is routinely spammed. To quote WP:SPAM:
- Tagging articles prone to spam
- Some articles, especially those pertaining to Internet topics, are prone to aggressive spamming from multiple websites. Please tag them with {{Cleanup-spam}} to advise the Wikipedia community to watch the article for abuse.
- But there is also the sentence It's a good idea to remove this tag once the attacks die down. so I'd say let's wait and see for the moment, even though there was only recently a link added again. --S.K. 06:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Headache
From the text:
"A choreography model provides a scope specifically focusing on the view of one participant (e.g. a peer to peer model). Instead, a orchestration model encompasses all parties and their associated interactions giving a global view of the system"
From a rather reliable source (http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/03-05%20WP%20WS-CDL%20Barros%20et%20al.pdf):
"A choreography captures interactions from a global perspective, meaning that all participating services are treated equally."
Reading some more one sees that the descriptions are not totally contradicting, but obviously there are differences... highlunder 17:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
