Workflow/BPM product Bonita v3 released with graphical tools

Discussions

News: Workflow/BPM product Bonita v3 released with graphical tools

  1. Bonita v3 has just been released. Bonita is a workflow/BPM project. Major changes for this release include an XPDL-compliant graphical workflow editor; XPDL is a standard process definition language that encourages interoperability between workflows and business processes. The following tools are now part of Bonita v3:
    • Workflow/BPM Console
      The Workflow Console is a web application which provides a common environment to workflow actors involved in the development, the administration, the monitoring and the execution of workflow processes.
    • XPDL compliant workflow editor
      The ProEd workflow editor is a graphical application which easily allows users to define XPDL compliant workflow processes on top of the Bonita workflow system.
    • Web forms editor (Workflow forms)
      The formEditor application is a web form editor allowing workflow designers to customise workflow web forms. This editor will automatically generate a default xForms files according to the workflow relevant data defined for a particular activity or workflow process. Those files will be accessible from the Workflow Console.
    Two different versions of Bonita can be downloaded:
    • Bonita Engine: packaged solution including the workflow engine as well as main workflow services.
    • Bonita Platform: an integrated version of Bonita including the engine + services + the graphical tools
    Both are released under the LGPL license. Message was edited by: joeo@enigmastation.com
  2. Congrats Miguel and all Bonita team Those new tools are great and really ease the process definition, you should put some screenshots on flickr :)
  3. Does anybody use Bonita and/or its graphical editor in production here? How is it in terms of integration with another (external) JavaEE applications?
  4. Will the ProEd XPDL editor allow the importing of xpdls for display/modification that are not created using ProEd editor? When this version will be bundled with EXO platform?
  5. Will the ProEd XPDL editor allow the importing of xpdls for display/modification that are not created using ProEd editor?

    When this version will be bundled with EXO platform?
    Yes you can. In fact XPDL compliant editors should allow this operation. For sure, some customizations are required in case of using the XPDL extended attributes. We are currently working on the ProEd Eclipse plugin version. This version will be available in the following weeks and can be used together with eXo. Even more we plan to extend the ProEd plugin to easily import Workflow Processes in eXo. Regards, Miguel Valdes http://bonita.objectweb.org
  6. ProEdXPDL[ Go to top ]

    Hi all, Is it possible to use XPDL 2.0 files (created with SIMPROCESS for example) in ProEd, respectively bonita???
  7. Along with the tool integration in eXo / Bonita distribution that we are working on with Miguel and Brice, we also provide a great runtime optimization. Indeed, with Bonita deployed in eXo it is possible to store the Business Processes XPDL files as well as the forms description inside eXo JCR. That allows to relaunch, edit, modify and version those files directly from the eXo File Explorer. Of course all the processes tasks are also viewable from eXo workflow portlets and tied to the Portal / ECM security roles.
  8. First - congratulations to Bonita Team, I'm glad the project lives. The more good projects on BPM market the better for us (users). Second - I wounder who considers XPDL as language that won't die in next 3 years? Third - can someone compare new Bonita with Shark(the other good XPDL workflow). And the last - Does Bonita has online demo like RUNA WFE online Demo. IMHO it is a good thing to let people see system in action without forcing to download huge (alomost 50mb product). --Mark
  9. First - congratulations to Bonita Team, I'm glad the project lives. The more good projects on BPM market the better for us (users).

    Second - I wounder who considers XPDL as language that won't die in next 3 years?
    To me, XPDL is the only human workflow related standard out there. XPDL is probably less known than others, let say compared with other BPM standards like BPEL but this is probably a matter of marketing (again BPEL is not a human related workflow standard, even if things like BPEL4People tries to solve the lake of human support of BPEL) Thanks to the new version of XPDL (2.0) I think the standard could become more popular. XPDL 2.0 is the grammar corresponding to the well known BPMN representation so this is, in my opinion, a right move that the Wfmc guys have done.

    Third - can someone compare new Bonita with Shark(the other good XPDL workflow).
    Shark is a good project which is also compliant with the XPDL standard but to me they goes wrong with the new business model based on a community edition (for the children :-) and a comercial enterprise edition (for the production projects). My feeling is that comparing open source solutions Bonita is providing more fontionality in terms of graphical environment and API features.

    And the last - Does Bonita has online demo like RUNA WFE online Demo.
    IMHO it is a good thing to let people see system in action without forcing to download huge (alomost 50mb product).

    --Mark
    You are right Marc, we should provide a online demo of Bonita in addition to the flash demo available on the web site. I would like to make it available pretty soon. Best regards, Miguel Valdes
  10. To me, XPDL is the only human workflow related standard out there. XPDL is probably less known than others, let say compared with other BPM standards like BPEL but this is probably a matter of marketing (again BPEL is not a human related workflow standard, even if things like BPEL4People tries to solve the lake of human support of BPEL)

    Thanks to the new version of XPDL (2.0) I think the standard could become more popular. XPDL 2.0 is the grammar corresponding to the well known BPMN representation so this is, in my opinion, a right move that the Wfmc guys have done.
    Thank you very much for response Miguel. I totally agree that BPEL is not for People ;-) I disagree that XPDL is less known (at least among those who takes workflow seriously). If we consider open source workflow solutions Bonita, Shark, WfMOpen support XPDL and there is no other workflow language that is so wide supported. I've seen good support for BPEL only in Intalio. Unfortunately we still don't have a standard workflow language that allows us take workflow from one system and run on another. That's why many so called light weight process languages exist. Usually they are used only in one vendor product. Most popular are OpenWFE - interesting workflow with different programming languages support. Drawbacks it doesn't have workflow editor and UI isn't as shining as in Bonita or Runa. RunaWFE is based on JBoss jBpm engine, they have nice UI, and process editor. I suggest to see their demo. YAWL by Van Der Aalst the author of www.workflowpatterns.com" I suggest to read the patterns even if you choose different workflow solution. And finally we had Bonita. I remember the time Bonita was a product with it's own workflow language. ;-) I wounder what made you to move to XPDL camp? What benefits users will have from XPDL support? --Mark

  11. I disagree that XPDL is less known (at least among those who takes workflow seriously).
    If we consider open source workflow solutions
    Bonita, Shark, WfMOpen support XPDL and there is no other workflow language that is so wide supported.
    Hi Marc, in fact I was thinking about most of the commercial BPM/Workflow solutions. Most of them are using a propietary definition language... or BPEL in the case that they decided to follow a particular standard (even for human related workflow) :-)

    Unfortunately we still don't have a standard workflow language that allows us take workflow from one system and run on another.
    That was indeed the purpose of creating XPDL isn't it ? Even if each Workflow vendor is extending, in a way or another, XPDL, you can, with more or less work, import this XPDL definition in another workflow engine. That's is already a good step forward !

    Most popular are
    OpenWFE - interesting workflow with different programming languages support. Drawbacks it doesn't have workflow editor and UI isn't as shining as in Bonita or Runa.

    RunaWFE is based on JBoss jBpm engine, they have nice UI, and process editor. I suggest to see their demo.
    Thanks for the links but I already know those projects (you know the BPM/Workflow open source vendors world is not so large, so basically we know each other :-)

    YAWL by Van Der Aalst the author of www.workflowpatterns.com"
    I suggest to read the patterns even if you choose different workflow solution.
    I was looking at YAWL some time before and it seems more like a way to show how those patterns can be implemented in a workflow engine (to me this is more a pedagogical workflow engine). BTW, We have already review those patterns in Bonita. There is a document about how Bonita is supporting most of them here

    I wounder what made you to move to XPDL camp?

    What benefits users will have from XPDL support?
    XPDL support in Bonita resolves the lack of a XML representation of the workflow process definition. In Bonita v1, the workflow process definition was directly stored in a relational database so the workflow user responsible for the workflow definition was forced to deal with the Bonita APIs during the definition time. Why we decided to move over XPDL rather than a propietary XML representation ? so well, basically I liked the idea to agree in a common grammar targeting human workflow definition. I was also aware about the XPDL 2.0 dev and the link between BPMN and XPDL 2.0, that make sense to me ! Best regards, Miguel Valdes

  12. I disagree that XPDL is less known (at least among those who takes workflow seriously).
    If we consider open source workflow solutions
    Bonita, Shark, WfMOpen support XPDL and there is no other workflow language that is so wide supported.
    Hi Marc, in fact I was thinking about most of the commercial BPM/Workflow solutions. Most of them are using a propietary definition language... or BPEL in the case that they decided to follow a particular standard (even for human related workflow) :-)
    Hi, Miguel IMHO XPDL is still as popular as BPEL on proprietary software market. On open source software market BPEL is less popular than XPLD. I agree that most commercial and not commercial BPM solutions use their own languages. Probably this is because so far workflow systems don't have many in common.
    Unfortunately we still don't have a standard workflow language that allows us take workflow from one system and run on another.

    That was indeed the purpose of creating XPDL isn't it ?
    WfMC is so bureaucratic that I doubt even about the purpose you mention ;-)
    Even if each Workflow vendor is extending, in a way or another, XPDL, you can, with more or less work, import this XPDL definition in another workflow engine. That's is already a good step forward
    According to my experience all you can get with it is the ability to reproduce graph. And even that simple task not always work in XPDL/BPEL solutions. While process graph _creation_ is often is less than 5% of work. IMHO the complexity of current standards XPDL/BPEL doesn't worth that 5%. And if have in mind that reproducing is not creation what do we benefit from that standard? How often do we switch between workflow systems? ;-) In other words that standards are doubtful benefits for users.


    Most popular are
    OpenWFE - interesting workflow with different programming languages support. Drawbacks it doesn't have workflow editor and UI isn't as shining as in Bonita or Runa.

    RunaWFE is based on JBoss jBpm engine, they have nice UI, and process editor. I suggest to see their demo.



    Thanks for the links but I already know those projects (you know the BPM/Workflow open source vendors world is not so large, so basically we know each other :-)
    There are so many workflow open source products that I doubt anyone can mention even a half of them. Those I mention are good ones that I evaluated myself. If you know any other that worth mention please tell me. Thanks for your comments. --Mark
  13. I was looking at YAWL some time before and it seems more like a way to show how those patterns can be implemented in a workflow engine (to me this is more a pedagogical workflow engine).
    I suggest checking the latest version of YAWL. While initially it was intended as an academic prototype, it has now been grown into an enterprise-grade workflow engine and it is being used in production environments. The latest release is version 8.2, see: http://yawlfoundation.org/ And it does have a graphical tool...