- Create wiki page in which companies share their motivation to participate in Activiti
- Tom Baeyens
- Joram Barrez
- David Syer
- Micha Kiener
- Agim Emruli
- Christian Stettler
- Stefan Niederhausen
- Bernd Ruecker
- Jacob Freund
- Esteban Robles
- Christian Mulder
- Define the roadmap as concrete as possible
- Jumpstart collaboration process and practices
9:00 - 10:00
10:00 - 10:30
Round of introductions. Every company gets 6 minutes :-)
10:30 - 12:00
Validate architecture and look for aspects of the architecture that need further discussion/decisions.
12:00 - 13:30
14:00 - 14:30
13:30 - 18:00
Scope discussions. List all the targeted features and indicate if they are
18:00 - ...
We'll probably meet up around 18:30 somewhere in the center of Stuttgart. Later will list the exact time and date. List your name if you want to join.
Friday July 2nd
9:00 - 11:00
11:00 - 12:00
12:00 - 13:30
13:30 - 15:00
16:00 - 17:00
Roundup + group hug
- how much separate libraries would we target? e.g. pvm, bpmn, task, identity, persistent-api
- how would the API look like? now processEngine.getXxxxService()
- how would the docs be structured?
- how would the links between task completion and process continuation be implemented?
- how to offer the test helper method implementations?
Configuration, initialization of process engines
Currently there is the strategy of setup building jars containing configurations. There is the programmatic creation of a process engine, there is the ProcessEngines registry and the servlet for automatic initialization.
We should establish a common strategy on how we deal with configuration files and initialization.
Following aspects should be considered and as much as possible unified:
- auto scanning and init and destroy
- basic process engine creation
- support for multiple engines
- ant process engine initialization, caching and destruction. also, how does an ant task reference a process engine
Should the test utilities and APIs be split off into a separate project? Would mean only unit tests in activiti-engine (but that's the way it is now anyway).
- JSON serialization into DB
- Cloud bigtable persistence
Is the current architecture OK for 5.0?
Biggest question around BPMN is the suitability for developers. jPDL was much more readable. Will BPMN shortcut suffice? Will just have to take the pain of a verbose language? Or do we need to go for usability, compactness and readability without compromises.
How do we make it easy for users to work with all these namespaces (if we decide to put custom conveniences in namespaces)
Is there a clear scope we can target? Simple or descriptive conformance? Maybe Bernd could prepare this topic as he's closest to the spec. But most important is not the knowledge of the actual conformance, but arguments that give us guidance on what kind of conformance we target and how strict we'll be. The alternative is that we define our own subset of what we think is useful.
Database upgrades. Automatic QA for upgrade.
The biggest question here is: How will we align the roadmap of researching the cloud solution with the roadmap towards 5.0GA in november?
An important aspect of cloud is the query API. We currently plan to build out the query API similar to jBPM 4. For example
taskService.createTaskQuery() .processInstanceId(processInstanceId) .activityName("task1") .orderAsc(TaskQuery.PROPERTY_NAME)