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 !