You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@syncope.apache.org by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org> on 2017/02/21 19:31:35 UTC
[DISCUSS] Replace Activiti with Flowable?
Hi all,
I have been recently made aware that many of the original developers of
Activiti (including the team leader Tijs Rademakers) started a new fork,
Flowable [1].
The detailed reasons for forking can be read from [2] but, besides
these, I think we need to decide whether to stick with Activiti as our
predefined workflow engine, or if instead it is be the case to move to
Flowable.
It seems that one of the main reasons behind the fork is the fact that
the original team wasn't able to cut out the new 6.0.0 release (which is
being worked since long time); the new team has recently published 6.0.0
[3] and also a maintenance 5.22.0 [4] (which is the version we are
currently using, but from Activiti).
Flowable 6 looks really interesting, especially for the cleaning and the
refactoring they made - which also solved the issue raised a while ago
in [5] about the Activiti Modeler license: it seems that the new
Flowable UI Modeler is completely AL 2.0 compliant; moreover, they
introduced some interesting support for multi-tenancy [6] which we can
leverage.
I would propose to:
1. open an issue to make the 2.1 series (e.g. the current master
branch) work with Flowable 6, replacing Activiti
2. open an issue to provide an additional module for the 2.0 series
(e.g. the current 2_0_X branch), named workflow-flowable, mostly a
clone of workflow-activiti [7] but with different dependencies;
workflow-activiti will remain the default choice, but people could
switch to Flowable on their own deployments if they will
WDYT?
Regards.
[1] http://www.flowable.org/
[2] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/12/flowable-and-activiti.html
[3] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2017/02/15/flowable-6.0.0-release.html
[4] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/13/flowable-5.22.0-release.html
[5]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-439?focusedCommentId=13829912&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13829912
[6]
http://forum.flowable.org/t/support-for-additional-multi-tenancy-models/175
[7] https://github.com/apache/syncope/tree/2_0_X/core/workflow-activiti
--
Francesco Chicchiricc�
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Member at The Apache Software Foundation
Syncope, Cocoon, Olingo, CXF, OpenJPA, PonyMail
http://home.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: [DISCUSS] Replace Activiti with Flowable?
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 27/03/2017 12:41, Francesco Chicchiricc� wrote:
> FYI,
> Flowable 5.23.0 is out, Activiti is still on 5.22.0 - this just to
> confirm the tendency discussed below.
>
> I will go ahead and create the issues as described - well, eventually
> at least.
I finally made it: SYNCOPE-1054 / SYNCOPE-1055
Regards.
> On 13/03/2017 18:27, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
>> Also +1 from me.
>>
>> Colm.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Fabio Martelli
>> <fa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Francesco, sorry for the late reply.
>>> Flowable sounds really interesting. I agree on the pair of steps you
>>> proposed below.
>>>
>>> +1 to move Apache Syncope in this direction.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> F.
>>>
>>> Il 21/02/2017 20:31, Francesco Chicchiricc� ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I have been recently made aware that many of the original
>>>> developers of
>>>> Activiti (including the team leader Tijs Rademakers) started a new
>>>> fork,
>>>> Flowable [1].
>>>> The detailed reasons for forking can be read from [2] but, besides
>>>> these,
>>>> I think we need to decide whether to stick with Activiti as our
>>>> predefined
>>>> workflow engine, or if instead it is be the case to move to Flowable.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that one of the main reasons behind the fork is the fact that
>>>> the original team wasn't able to cut out the new 6.0.0 release
>>>> (which is
>>>> being worked since long time); the new team has recently published
>>>> 6.0.0
>>>> [3] and also a maintenance 5.22.0 [4] (which is the version we are
>>>> currently using, but from Activiti).
>>>>
>>>> Flowable 6 looks really interesting, especially for the cleaning
>>>> and the
>>>> refactoring they made - which also solved the issue raised a while
>>>> ago in
>>>> [5] about the Activiti Modeler license: it seems that the new
>>>> Flowable UI
>>>> Modeler is completely AL 2.0 compliant; moreover, they introduced some
>>>> interesting support for multi-tenancy [6] which we can leverage.
>>>>
>>>> I would propose to:
>>>>
>>>> 1. open an issue to make the 2.1 series (e.g. the current master
>>>> branch) work with Flowable 6, replacing Activiti
>>>> 2. open an issue to provide an additional module for the 2.0 series
>>>> (e.g. the current 2_0_X branch), named workflow-flowable, mostly a
>>>> clone of workflow-activiti [7] but with different dependencies;
>>>> workflow-activiti will remain the default choice, but people could
>>>> switch to Flowable on their own deployments if they will
>>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.flowable.org/
>>>> [2] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/12/flowable-and-activiti.html
>>>> [3]
>>>> http://www.flowable.org/blog/2017/02/15/flowable-6.0.0-release.html
>>>> [4]
>>>> http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/13/flowable-5.22.0-release.html
>>>> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-439?focusedCom
>>>> mentId=13829912&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.
>>>> issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13829912
>>>> [6] http://forum.flowable.org/t/support-for-additional-multi-ten
>>>> ancy-models/175
>>>> [7]
>>>> https://github.com/apache/syncope/tree/2_0_X/core/workflow-activiti
--
Francesco Chicchiricc�
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Member at The Apache Software Foundation
Syncope, Cocoon, Olingo, CXF, OpenJPA, PonyMail
http://home.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: [DISCUSS] Replace Activiti with Flowable?
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
FYI,
Flowable 5.23.0 is out, Activiti is still on 5.22.0 - this just to
confirm the tendency discussed below.
I will go ahead and create the issues as described - well, eventually at
least.
Regards.
On 13/03/2017 18:27, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Also +1 from me.
>
> Colm.
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Francesco, sorry for the late reply.
>> Flowable sounds really interesting. I agree on the pair of steps you
>> proposed below.
>>
>> +1 to move Apache Syncope in this direction.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> F.
>>
>> Il 21/02/2017 20:31, Francesco Chicchiricc� ha scritto:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I have been recently made aware that many of the original developers of
>>> Activiti (including the team leader Tijs Rademakers) started a new fork,
>>> Flowable [1].
>>> The detailed reasons for forking can be read from [2] but, besides these,
>>> I think we need to decide whether to stick with Activiti as our predefined
>>> workflow engine, or if instead it is be the case to move to Flowable.
>>>
>>> It seems that one of the main reasons behind the fork is the fact that
>>> the original team wasn't able to cut out the new 6.0.0 release (which is
>>> being worked since long time); the new team has recently published 6.0.0
>>> [3] and also a maintenance 5.22.0 [4] (which is the version we are
>>> currently using, but from Activiti).
>>>
>>> Flowable 6 looks really interesting, especially for the cleaning and the
>>> refactoring they made - which also solved the issue raised a while ago in
>>> [5] about the Activiti Modeler license: it seems that the new Flowable UI
>>> Modeler is completely AL 2.0 compliant; moreover, they introduced some
>>> interesting support for multi-tenancy [6] which we can leverage.
>>>
>>> I would propose to:
>>>
>>> 1. open an issue to make the 2.1 series (e.g. the current master
>>> branch) work with Flowable 6, replacing Activiti
>>> 2. open an issue to provide an additional module for the 2.0 series
>>> (e.g. the current 2_0_X branch), named workflow-flowable, mostly a
>>> clone of workflow-activiti [7] but with different dependencies;
>>> workflow-activiti will remain the default choice, but people could
>>> switch to Flowable on their own deployments if they will
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.flowable.org/
>>> [2] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/12/flowable-and-activiti.html
>>> [3] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2017/02/15/flowable-6.0.0-release.html
>>> [4] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/13/flowable-5.22.0-release.html
>>> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-439?focusedCom
>>> mentId=13829912&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.
>>> issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13829912
>>> [6] http://forum.flowable.org/t/support-for-additional-multi-ten
>>> ancy-models/175
>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/syncope/tree/2_0_X/core/workflow-activiti
--
Francesco Chicchiricc�
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Member at The Apache Software Foundation
Syncope, Cocoon, Olingo, CXF, OpenJPA, PonyMail
http://home.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: [DISCUSS] Replace Activiti with Flowable?
Posted by Colm O hEigeartaigh <co...@apache.org>.
Also +1 from me.
Colm.
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Francesco, sorry for the late reply.
> Flowable sounds really interesting. I agree on the pair of steps you
> proposed below.
>
> +1 to move Apache Syncope in this direction.
>
> Best regards,
> F.
>
> Il 21/02/2017 20:31, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>
>> Hi all,
>> I have been recently made aware that many of the original developers of
>> Activiti (including the team leader Tijs Rademakers) started a new fork,
>> Flowable [1].
>> The detailed reasons for forking can be read from [2] but, besides these,
>> I think we need to decide whether to stick with Activiti as our predefined
>> workflow engine, or if instead it is be the case to move to Flowable.
>>
>> It seems that one of the main reasons behind the fork is the fact that
>> the original team wasn't able to cut out the new 6.0.0 release (which is
>> being worked since long time); the new team has recently published 6.0.0
>> [3] and also a maintenance 5.22.0 [4] (which is the version we are
>> currently using, but from Activiti).
>>
>> Flowable 6 looks really interesting, especially for the cleaning and the
>> refactoring they made - which also solved the issue raised a while ago in
>> [5] about the Activiti Modeler license: it seems that the new Flowable UI
>> Modeler is completely AL 2.0 compliant; moreover, they introduced some
>> interesting support for multi-tenancy [6] which we can leverage.
>>
>> I would propose to:
>>
>> 1. open an issue to make the 2.1 series (e.g. the current master
>> branch) work with Flowable 6, replacing Activiti
>> 2. open an issue to provide an additional module for the 2.0 series
>> (e.g. the current 2_0_X branch), named workflow-flowable, mostly a
>> clone of workflow-activiti [7] but with different dependencies;
>> workflow-activiti will remain the default choice, but people could
>> switch to Flowable on their own deployments if they will
>>
>> WDYT?
>> Regards.
>>
>> [1] http://www.flowable.org/
>> [2] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/12/flowable-and-activiti.html
>> [3] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2017/02/15/flowable-6.0.0-release.html
>> [4] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/13/flowable-5.22.0-release.html
>> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-439?focusedCom
>> mentId=13829912&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.
>> issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13829912
>> [6] http://forum.flowable.org/t/support-for-additional-multi-ten
>> ancy-models/175
>> [7] https://github.com/apache/syncope/tree/2_0_X/core/workflow-activiti
>>
>>
>
> --
> Fabio Martelli
> https://it.linkedin.com/pub/fabio-martelli/1/974/a44
> http://blog.tirasa.net/author/fabio/index.html
>
> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
> http://www.tirasa.net/
>
> Apache Syncope PMC
> http://people.apache.org/~fmartelli/
>
>
--
Colm O hEigeartaigh
Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Replace Activiti with Flowable?
Posted by Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Francesco, sorry for the late reply.
Flowable sounds really interesting. I agree on the pair of steps you
proposed below.
+1 to move Apache Syncope in this direction.
Best regards,
F.
Il 21/02/2017 20:31, Francesco Chicchiricc� ha scritto:
> Hi all,
> I have been recently made aware that many of the original developers
> of Activiti (including the team leader Tijs Rademakers) started a new
> fork, Flowable [1].
> The detailed reasons for forking can be read from [2] but, besides
> these, I think we need to decide whether to stick with Activiti as our
> predefined workflow engine, or if instead it is be the case to move to
> Flowable.
>
> It seems that one of the main reasons behind the fork is the fact that
> the original team wasn't able to cut out the new 6.0.0 release (which
> is being worked since long time); the new team has recently published
> 6.0.0 [3] and also a maintenance 5.22.0 [4] (which is the version we
> are currently using, but from Activiti).
>
> Flowable 6 looks really interesting, especially for the cleaning and
> the refactoring they made - which also solved the issue raised a while
> ago in [5] about the Activiti Modeler license: it seems that the new
> Flowable UI Modeler is completely AL 2.0 compliant; moreover, they
> introduced some interesting support for multi-tenancy [6] which we can
> leverage.
>
> I would propose to:
>
> 1. open an issue to make the 2.1 series (e.g. the current master
> branch) work with Flowable 6, replacing Activiti
> 2. open an issue to provide an additional module for the 2.0 series
> (e.g. the current 2_0_X branch), named workflow-flowable, mostly a
> clone of workflow-activiti [7] but with different dependencies;
> workflow-activiti will remain the default choice, but people could
> switch to Flowable on their own deployments if they will
>
> WDYT?
> Regards.
>
> [1] http://www.flowable.org/
> [2] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/12/flowable-and-activiti.html
> [3] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2017/02/15/flowable-6.0.0-release.html
> [4] http://www.flowable.org/blog/2016/10/13/flowable-5.22.0-release.html
> [5]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-439?focusedCommentId=13829912&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13829912
> [6]
> http://forum.flowable.org/t/support-for-additional-multi-tenancy-models/175
> [7] https://github.com/apache/syncope/tree/2_0_X/core/workflow-activiti
>
--
Fabio Martelli
https://it.linkedin.com/pub/fabio-martelli/1/974/a44
http://blog.tirasa.net/author/fabio/index.html
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Apache Syncope PMC
http://people.apache.org/~fmartelli/