SHARK workflow implementation and comparison of WMFC & OMG specifications
----- Part 2: Why use so many standards
Keywords: Shark workflow WMFC OMG specification
If you search for workflow Workflow in Google, you will find that now Workflow Open Source project will be dazzled.
Despite the many workflow norms of standards such as WFMC and OMF, the implementation of the workflow is still very different.
After reading the source code of OsWorkflow, JBPM, Shark, the author found that the difference is too big, where JBPM does not use the XDPL description language.
Why do this happen? I think there are some points:
1. The realization of workflow lacks attention focus. Everything is workflow, but I think that as long as it is workflow, it can rely on this aspect. There is no focus. (This brings a problem: Is it a workflow for different business, you can use a workflow engine to be implemented.)
2, theory and practice gap. Workflow is early first, in the college, the mathematical model is achieved, and software companies have established their own solutions for different business needs. So I don't think it is too strong for specific exactly, as long as it can achieve workflow in semantic sense.
Differential differences are try to use Workflow mode Workflow Patterns.
The mainstream tendency to develop workflow is: Select an open source workflow engine that uses XDPL description language.
to be continued.
Tian Chunfeng
Accesine@163.com
I am looking at OsWorkflow, Shark, OFBIZ, OBE, and JBPM discovered that workflow difficulties is:
1. How to link the specific tasks of the workflow and workflow execution.
That is: For example: a workflow has three specific activity activities of A, B, and C.
So, how to help these Activity and the specific Java method functions together,
For example: How to let the A process execute the createLog () method, the B process executes the MakeDesicision () method, and so on.
2, how workflow allows users to customize in B / S.
If the friend has similar experience, we can communicate.
