VOSibilities

Service-oriented BPM is all about using and providing services. Even tasks done by people are modeled as services. Services use and return XML documents. This means that every decision, every loop condition and generally every use of data has to be able to pull the appropriate data out of XML documents. This is the job of XPath. Many people only have a rudimentary knowledge is XPath, letting their tools generate it for them, but a more complete understanding of the language can help you make simpler processes and allow you a greater understanding is what is going on at runtime. Use the links below to either view a recording of this episode of CTO Tuesdays or just read the slides (the last link).

 

 CTOT 34: XPath [48:27m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (51)

 CTOT 34: XPath [48:27m]: Download (49)

 CTOT 34: XPath: Download (6)

Active Endpoints, Inc., the leader in affordable, service-oriented BPM that development teams love, today announced that John Cingari has joined the company as Chief Marketing Officer, Tyler Drolet as Chief Financial Officer, and Henry Ancona, who has served on the boards of Pegasystems, Computervision (acquired), and OneSource Information Services (acquired), to the Board of Directors. In addition, René Bonvanie, Vice President, Worldwide Marketing, Palo Alto Networks and former Oracle, SAP, Veritas, and Serena Software executive, joined the Board of Directors in February of this year.

These industry veterans, who have created and managed both rapidly growing private and public companies, joined the company because of Active Endpoints’ unique vision to deliver affordable, service-oriented BPM in order to take advantage of strong demand in this segment of the large and growing BPM market.

The company continues to show significant traction, confirming customers want an alternative to traditional, complex and expensive BPMS’s. For example, revenues grew over 100% in the 1st half 2010 compared to the 1st half of 2009. In addition, the customer base continues to expand in all geographic regions and industries, including Telecommunications (Tele2), Media and Entertainment (itfc), Government (Naval Research Labs), and Financial Services/Insurance (Desjardins General Insurance Group).

Download the Active Endpoints press release below for more details.

 Active Endpoints Attracts Industry Vets: Download (39)

In this week’s CTO Tuesday, I addressed the question of whether the architectural style called “REST” is well suited to BPM. I’ll save you the suspense and tell you the answer is no. That isn’t to say that ActiveVOS doesn’t support REST. It does. But if you have a choice, should you follow that style? That is where the answer is no.

Contrary to many of the APIs that call themselves REST-based, REST means more than using HTTP GET to call the service and getting plain XML documents back as results. The talk describes the five key principals of REST, including the most important one, which is called HATEOAS. It is an interesting principal that works well for the Web, but it is antithetical to design-time type checking. In fact the REST style is, in general, in conflict with any kind of design-time typing (Roy Fielding refers to typing as “out-of-band” information that creates a tight coupling between client and server).

However, design-time typing is just part of a well-defined service contract and good service contracts are one of the most important characteristics of a service-oriented architecture. I describe this more fully in the talk and also describe the critical value of design-time typing for BPM. I also show how fragile business processes become when they have to depend on REST.

You can view the talk using one of the formats below or just look at the slides (the PDF at the bottom).

 

 CTOT 33: is Rest Right for BPM? [35:10m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (105)

 CTOT 33: is Rest Right for BPM? [35:10m]: Download (76)

 CTOT 33: is Rest Right for BPM?: Download (70)

A number of standards efforts related to BPM are nearing completion of major milestones. This includes 4 standards efforts in 3 different standards development organizations:

• OASIS: BPEL4People 1.1 and WS-HumanTask 1.1
• OMG: BPMN 2.0
• WfMC: XPDL 2.2
• OASIS: SCA 1.1

In this week’s CTO Tuesdays, I describe the current state of each of these efforts along with a brief description of the history and main goals of these standards. Here is a recording of the presentation and a copy of the slides.

 

 CTO 32: BPM Standards Update [50:26m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (177)

 CTO 32: BPM Standards Update [50:26m]: Download (87)

 CTO 32: BPM Standards Update: Download (117)

In this recording of CTO Tuesdays, I describe the history of the key standards that are important for SOA, such as XML (starting back with SGML), XML Schema, SOAP, WSDL and BPEL. I also describe some of the key architectural characteristics of SOA that drove the standards, as well as some of the standards-making politics that was peculiar to service-oriented standards. If you are curious about the history of SOA and its related standards, you may find this talk to be interesting.

 

 CTOT 31: History of SOA, part 2 [43:07m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (180)

 CTOT 31: History of SOA, part 2 [55:20m]: Download (53)

 CTOT 31: History of SOA, part 2: Download (73)

 CTOT 31: History of SOA, part 2: Download (93)

In this recording of CTO Tuesdays, the BPMS podcast, Michael Rowley describes how we got here — taking a special look at previous attempts to solve some core development problems. Whatever your interest: SOA, BPM, application development, even just a passing historical curiosity, you will want to watch this (and future) episodes.

 

 CTO Tuesdays #30: SOA , part 1 [50:32m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (277)

 CTO Tuesdays #30: SOA , part 1 [50:32m]: Download (78)

 CTO Tuesdays #30: SOA , part 1: Download (144)

 CTO Tuesdays #30: SOA , part 1: Download (111)

OK, OK…I know. The pun on SOAP and soap opera is a little much. But doesn’t the SOA world feel like a never-ending, overwrought daytime TV drama?

I mean, c’mon. Nobody can decide if SOA is dead or alive…if it’s a product (or set of products) or if it’s JBOI (just a bunch of ideas, a pun on “JBOD.” I just can’t help myself.).

So, starting tomorrow on CTO Tuesdays, the BPM podcast, Michael Rowley will begin another “miniseries” within the larger podcast that begins with the very basics of SOA and builds over time to paint a complete picture of this much discussed and often misunderstood development approach. We intend this as a primer for both new and expert users and we are excited that the recurring SOA topics will expand CTO Tuesdays’ regular line-up of BPM technology talks.

Register for CTO Tuesdays at http://www.activevos.com/ctot and, as always, you can return to this blog for replays. But we hope you can join us live because we expect the discussion after Michael’s presentation on these topics to be very lively and we hope to have you join in the discussion.

Neil Ward-Dutton of MWD Advisors says in the webinar Making the Right Connections Between BPM and SOA that sometimes, depending on what your business focus is, SOA and BPM can be like ships passing in the night.

If that’s happening in your enterprise, it’s a real shame. Watch the replay of this webinar in which Neil and Active Endpoints CTO Michael Rowley make a business and technology argument for linking BPM and SOA initiatives in your organization. It’s a compelling case…and one we hope you will consider adopting in your organization.

 BPM and SOA: making the right connections [72:03m]: Download (276)

 

 BPM and SOA: making the right connections: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (374)

 BPM and SOA: making the right connections [72:03m]: Download (95)

 BPM and SOA: making the right connections: Download (152)

We are very pleased to present a replay of a webinar we hosted featuring Forrester Research, Inc. Vice President and Principal Analyst Randy Heffner and Michael Rowley, CTO, Active Endpoints, Inc. titled SOA, BPM and building your digital business.

Originally recorded on March 25, 2010, this webinar explains what a digital business is and describes the technological approaches that are possible to achieving digital processes using SOA and BPM. A demonstration of the ActiveVOS BPMS is given to illustrate some of the concepts of a digital business. A stimulating Q&A with attendees follows.

There are multiple formats attached to this post, including a Flash version that can be streamed from the blog.

 VOSibilities podcast #46: SOA, BPM and building your digital business [78:55m]: Download (387)

 

 VOSibilities podcast #46: SOA, BPM and building your digital business [78:53m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (429)

 VOSibilities podcast #46: SOA, BPM and building your digital business [78:59m]: Download (131)

BPMN 2.0 and WS-BPEL 2.0 are the two most important standards for BPM today. But why are there two? Can’t you just care about BPEL or just care about BPMN? In fact, both standards matter and the two should be used together. To back that up, I have to convince you both that BPEL needs BPMN and that BPMN needs BPEL. In today’s post, I’ll concentrate on the first: why BPEL needs BPMN.

First, lets assume that you are convinced of the value of BPEL. You see that it is a great high-level language for creating business processes and orchestrating services. Its service-centric approach is simpler and better for long-term manageability and reuse than other approaches to business process management. It is an accepted OASIS standard with multiple vendor implementations, so investments in BPEL processes are not tied to a single vendor and you can find people who already know the language without having to train them from scratch.

But if you are convinced you want BPEL, why should you care about BPMN? There are two main reasons:

1) To get the value of a standard notation;

2) To improve collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders in the process, since BPMN is a significant simplification over existing notations used for BPEL.

When WS-BPEL 2.0 was standardized, the OASIS Technical Committee chose not to standardize a graphical notation for it. This was unfortunate, since no one creates a business process by writing BPEL in XML, which is the only standardized representation. Every vendor, and every BPEL developer, creates their processes using a graphical representation, but that representation is different for every tool.

And the notations used by these tools haven’t really been very good. They typically provide a one-to-one correspondence between control flow constructs in BPEL and things on the canvas. However, if you use the BPMN notation, it shows a notation that can mostly be understood without any knowledge of BPEL or even BPMN for that matter (as long as the labels are chosen carefully).

Let me make both of these points with the help of a trivial process example. Take a look at the BPMN representation of a process that I’ll call the “Question” process.

(Click on each image to see a larger version)

It is trivial to follow what is going on, especially if you know the standard notation. You can’t tell by looking at this diagram, but I’ve used two different BPEL mechanisms for getting to the next activity. I use a BPEL link to get from “Receive Q” to the first diamond (the beginning of the BPEL if statement). I use a BPEL sequence to get from the second diamond (the end of the if) to the “Record Answer” activity.

The user who is looking at the graphical representation of the process doesn’t need to know about the distinction between these two mechanisms, so the diagram doesn’t show a difference. The developer may want to know about the difference, so ActiveVOS highlights them differently on mouse-over and shows them differently in the “process outline view”, but that isn’t really important for today’s discussion.

What is important is how different the process is represented in different tools due to the fact that no notation had been standardized. I’ll show what this process looks like in three different BPEL process designers.

Here is how ActiveVOS would represent this process in previous versions of the product (or using the optional “classic” style in 7.0):

Here is how the Eclipse BPEL Designer represents it:

And, here is how the designer for Oracle’s BPEL Process Manager represents it:

In all three of these representations, each of the paths through the if statement are represented by a bounding box. The problem with this representation is that nested if statements can result in so many nested bounding boxes that it is hard to follow what is going on. BPMN simply has arrows through each path and the paths merge back into a single control flow at a gateway diamond.

Also notice the differences in the handling of links vs. sequences. Both ActiveVOS classic and Eclipse represent sequences with their own bounding boxes, then any arrow that is a direct child of a sequence box is known to belong to the sequence, rather than being a real link. Eclipse also draws the links in different color. The extra sequence icon and corresponding bounding box just interferes with the ability for non-technical users to follow what is going on in the process.

Oracle’s designer is odd in this respect. Sequences are not shown in a bounding box, so they don’t clutter up the control flow (a good thing in my opinion), but links aren’t shown at all! There is a link from the “Receive_Q” activity to the if statement, but there isn’t any representation of it on the diagram. It shows the “Receive_Q” and the if as if they happen in parallel. You have to look into the properties of “Receive_Q” to discover that it has an outgoing link, and further rummaging to find out where it goes.

The BPMN representation is, by far, the easiest version of this small process to understand. The process illustrates just three constructs whose representation is simpler with BPMN than with other approaches: ifs, sequences and links. The other BPEL constructs are generally as easy or easier for non-technical users to understand than previous approaches.

But, as valuable as the improvement in readability may be, the greater value that BPMN brings to be BPEL is probably consistency. Having different tools represent similar constructs in such different ways is detrimental to one of the key values in having a standard: skills portability. With a common notation, people will be able to carry their knowledge of how to understand and work with standards-based business processes between vendor tools. It will also create a greater incentive for people to learn these technologies and for schools to teach them. After all, people aren’t usually to thrilled about investing a lot of energy into learning proprietary technologies, and no school really wants to be teaching proprietary technologies.

I’ll bet that it felt like a momentous achievement to get a group of very well-known bloggers, analysts and technologists to agree on a “manifesto” for services-oriented architecture (SOA).

Imagine the group-think of it all: a bunch of people with widely-varying views came together and produced….yet another statement. I imagine the camaraderie and group hugs that must have accompanied this effort resulted in repeated choruses of Kumbaya…or at least a serious drinking party to celebrate the achievement. (Guess which we like better.)

OK, OK…I know there’s no reason to be snide. And, yes, I realize that the manifesto is unobjectionable..that criticizing it is the equivalent of dissing motherhood or sunshine or quarks.

But the big problem for SOA — which is “dead” one moment and “strategic” the next — is that it doesn’t need yet another descriptive manifesto…it needs manifestation. Consider the definitions of manifesto and manifestation. Manifesto is about intention. Manifestation is about materialization. One is talk. The other is about something real.

And high-faultin’ talk has been SOA’s problem for…well…forever. While it’s good fun to have an ole-time, intellectual techno-debate about this aspect of implementing SOA versus that technique for doing it, the consistent response to SOA from legions of developers has been, “We just don’t care. And, not only don’t we care…since you are making this so hard, we’re gonna stay right where we are doing things as we have always done them. Good luck with your SOA thing.”

What happens when industry thought-leaders run smack into the biggest wall of them all: developer resistance? They talk some more. Consultants build big engagements to explain to management how to get around developer resistance. Vendors who bought one of everything and lumped it all together as “SOA” have made implementing their stacks so expensive and complicated they advocate “centers of excellence” — that is, internal lobbying groups — who try to explain it all to the average development team using…guess what…still more words.

In short, SOA needs fewer words and more products mere mortals can use.

How about we manifest SOA in products so that it’s invisible? So that you can do the right thing without knowing the first thing about SOA? Do civil engineers demand that we understand the properties of asphalt before we drive on it? Must you ascertain the precise chemical composition of your dinner before you eat it? No, we just drive home at night and stick a fork into the main course. We don’t think twice about it.

That’s what SOA needs to be (and what we think ActiveVOS achieves). As an industry, we need to take what we know, stop talking about it and scaring people off — and build it into shrinkwrap-like product that have people doing the right things automatically.

We are pleased to present the latest episode of Dana Gardner’s BriefingsDirect Analyst Insight. This time Dana talks with noted industry analyst Dave Linthicum about his new book on SOA and cloud computing.

We hope you enjoy this fascinating interview. Also, in case you’re interested, you can also access a white paper Dave recently wrote on SOA development tools here.

 

 BriefingsDirect Analyst Insights Podcast #45: Dave Linthicum's new book on SOA and cloud computing [45:40m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (4642)

 BriefingsDirect Analyst Insights Podcast #45: Dave Linthicum's new book on SOA and cloud computing: Download (233)

Scary big. That is how big Oracle is in middleware. After bragging that they had beat BEA to be #2 in the middleware market, they bought them. Then, with the acquisition of Sun, Oracle has control over the underlying technologies of Java and Java EE, plus the primary open-source challenge to their database dominance. Of course, IBM has also done its share of gobbling up middleware companies, so between them, the number of products and acquisitions has become overwhelming. We made exactly that point last week at Oracle “Open”World by dressing up actors as prisoners “shackled” to Oracle SOA Suite (Check out the hi-jinks here, here and here.)

Up to now, enterprises have typically had one choice that drove most other technology choices in the data center: .Net or Java. If you chose .Net, then you are a Microsoft shop and you’ve decided that the advantages of living in a single vendor world outweigh the disadvantages of being tied to that one vendor. However, if you chose to go with Java, you probably did so because you wanted to then live in the world of standards-based technologies, where for each technology purchase, you could separately evaluate products from a number of competing vendors.

But now, with much of the Java middleware world being absorbed into one of two vendors, the era of having a choices for each purchase is coming to an end. Instead, there will be just one big decision. Do you want to be a Microsoft shop, an Oracle shop or an IBM shop? All other decisions will flow from that initial decision. This is because the development teams in each of those companies will naturally be forced to give a high priority to getting any new software to work with existing software from the same company. Getting it to work with the other company’s software will be a “goal,” but as someone deeply involved in the development of software products, trust me when I tell you those are the kinds of goals that tend to slip as the ship date of any product nears.

Does it matter? Isn’t three enough? Yes, it matters. And no, three isn’t enough. Actually, the real problem isn’t the small number of choices; it is that the switching costs are just too high. If there were three good choices for each purchase, that wouldn’t be so bad. But when you are virtually locked into a single vendor for each new purchase once you’ve started down the road of buying from them, then it is a real problem. The lack of competition for individual products removes critical competitive pressures from individual product lines, so the products grow to become heavy, badly integrated, expensive beasts.

And, if enterprises have to pay more for lower quality software on their servers, this affects everyone. The ultimate consumer pays for the more expensive software in higher prices, but they pay even more for the lower productivity that comes from software that is hard to use, hard to manage, and unresponsive to the needs of the business.

We get up in the morning and think about what we can do to make ActiveVOS the antithesis of the bloatware from Oracle and IBM.

Last week, CTO Michael Rowley and I showed ActiveVOS 7 to Rob Barry of TechTarget’s SOA Talk blog.  I know it’s a party foul to quote yourself in a blog post, but we are grateful that Rob chose to highlight one of the main accomplishments we believe we have achieved for BPM in ActiveVOS 7:

“BPM suites that focus on business users, they don’t get technical enough,” said Alex Neihaus, VP of marketing at Active Endpoints. “They become islands of computing and sit off by themselves. And with BPMS for architects and developers, the level of cost and complexity is beyond the level of what most people are willing to undertake.”

This “third way” between the cost and complexity of stacks from Oracle and IBM and the unfulfilled promises of Lombardi and Pegasystems to integrate easily across the enterprise are why we believe we have become so popular among development teams. Looking past old buying habits and the new politics of “end user” BPM, our customers are seeking great technology at an affordable price that can be used to create integrated processes as that are themselves services.

You can read Rob’s entire blog post here.

As we promised in part 1 of of our discussion on the new features in the ActiveVOS 7 BPMS, we are delighted to post part 2 of a conversation among me (Alex Neihaus), Luc Clément and Michael Rowley. In this second podcast, Michael and Luc cover topics that are of interest to enterprise architects, developers and operations staff. Topics include continuous development (including support for the open-source Hudson project) and new features in the BPMN designer that improve productivity and operational enhancements.

We hope you enjoy this podcast.

 

 VOSibilities podcast #37: ActiveVOS 7.0, part 2 [28:32m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (10218)