David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

Responses to The Case Against BPEL  
# Sunday, November 06, 2005
 
Of the various responses I’ve seen to my latest Opinari , perhaps the most interesting came from Oracle’s Edwin Khodabakchian. Edwin was CEO of Collaxa, probably the most visible provider of a BPEL-focused product prior to its acquisition by Oracle. His comments appeared as a response to this post on ZDNet.

The main argument my article makes is this: BPEL is useful for specifying business protocols, which are sets of web services interactions defined by what the BPEL spec calls abstract processes. It’s significantly less useful for defining portable business processes, referred to as executable processes by the BPEL spec. Too much is left undefined to allow true portability for a complete solution. Given this short summary, here are a few responses to Edwin’s main points:

- Edwin states “Saying that BPEL is useful for abstract processes but not for executable processes is out of touch with reality. Many vendors have support for executable BPEL processes today”. The point of my article is not that vendors don’t support BPEL executable processes today—they certainly do—but rather that BPEL is so incomplete in this area that it’s not all that much better than a proprietary language would be for describing complete and portable business processes.

- Edwin suggests that the way to solve BPEL’s portability limitations for executable processes is with the Web Services Invocation Framework (WSIF). But WSIF is an open source Java spec. What about the half of the world that uses .NET? If the goal is to map BPEL portably to Java, why not just use the BPELJ proposal made by IBM and BEA some time ago? In fact, why create a separate language for process logic at all? It would certainly be possible to define a Java package with the functionality of BPEL, avoiding the need for yet another language. The truth is that Microsoft’s support for BPEL, and the cross-platform portability this implies, is one of the primary reasons the language has value. Using WSIF to address BPEL’s portability shortcomings would obviate this important part of the language’s potential benefits.

- Edwin points out that BPEL’s lack of support for human-oriented processes isn’t a problem, since solutions are provided by several products, including those from Oracle, IBM, and BEA. True, but the problem is that each one does it differently. Different vendors can add functionality to BPEL in any way they like, but these different solutions make it more difficult to move process definitions from one system to another. And while there may one day be a standard BPEL approach for describing human interaction—the OASIS committee is working on this—widespread support for this in products is surely years away. Having spent many years of my life working in the standards world, I’ve learned to be cynical about claims that something will be fixed in a future version of the spec. In my experience, this is frequently an excuse for vendors to add proprietary extensions that lock users into their products today.

- Edwin tells a story about a CRM vendor whose BPEL processes executed on both Collaxa’s BPEL engine and one from another vendor. Yet this example isn’t relevant to my argument. BPEL certainly is portable for what it defines—I’m not disputing this. The problem lies in what the language doesn’t define.

- Edwin observes that “the only vendors fighting BPEL today are those who are behind in the race to support it”. I’m not sure which vendors Edwin believes are fighting BPEL, since it’s supported today by pretty much every major player in this market. In any case, I’m not a vendor. The observations in my article, like everything I write, reflect my personal perspective. I’m also not fighting BPEL. Instead, my goal is to inject a bit more clarity into the debate around this widely-discussed language.


1 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Hi Dave,
Happy New Year! 3 follow ups:

Regarding WSIF, it is indeed Java only. What I wanted to highlight though is the approach of *binding* process logic to code rather than *mixing* process logic and code (which is the Microsoft Workflow way). The SCA assembly spec takes WSIF one step further and opens the door to richer .NET interoperability.

Regarding human workflow, the BPEL4People initiative is working on standardizing service interfaces of human task management. This will remove any dependency of vendor specific service APIs.

Regarding turning Java into a process language, we did that in the early days of Collaxa (see Collaxa ScenarioBeans for more information). There are some good lessons to learn ...I am sure that the Microsoft Workflow people will learn them soon enough :-)

Cheers,

Edwin
 

Post a Comment


<< Home