Bug 778923 (SOA-1363) - Best practices guide for integration of Seam, jBPM, and ESB
Summary: Best practices guide for integration of Seam, jBPM, and ESB
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: SOA-1363
Product: JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform 4
Classification: JBoss
Component: Documentation
Version: 4.3 CP01
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
high
high
Target Milestone: ---
: FUTURE
Assignee: Len DiMaggio
QA Contact:
URL: http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/SOA...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2009-06-11 01:58 UTC by Aaron Pestel
Modified: 2011-12-05 18:48 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
SOA-P 4.3 CP01
Last Closed: 2011-12-05 18:48:21 UTC
Type: Feature Request


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 778823 0 high CLOSED Seam and SOA-P Integration. 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC
Red Hat Issue Tracker SOA-1363 0 None None None Never

Internal Links: 778823

Description Aaron Pestel 2009-06-11 01:58:36 UTC
Date of First Response: 2009-06-16 02:27:59
project_key: SOA

Requesting creation of a best practices guide for integration of Seam, jBPM, and ESB in SOA-P.

Specifically, this should address using Seam's built-in jBPM annotations to invoke jBPM business processes that use EsbActionHandler to invoke ESB services.

There are people that do not believe that we should support "deep" integration between the three components (Seam, jBPM, ESB) - in other words there needs to be a loosely coupled interface between Seam and SOA functionality.  Pragmatically, this means that if Seam is going to be tightly integrated with a jBPM process, then that jBPM process should be loosely coupled to ESB services and invoke them through gateways, not through the ESBActionHandler (deep integration).  Or if a jBPM process is going to be tightly coupled with ESB Services (ESBActionHandler), then Seam should interact with that jBPM process in a loosely coupled way (ESB service gateway providing access to the jBPM process, not via annotations). 

This is not necessarily my opinion, but I do think we need to have official documentation of our official best practices - whatever we decide they are.

Comment 1 Jeff Yu 2009-06-12 06:17:03 UTC
Link: Added: This issue is related to SOA-1273


Comment 2 Jeff Yu 2009-06-16 06:27:59 UTC
How about we use following paragraph to the 'best practices guide':


"
In the combination of Seam, jBPM and ESB. it is recommended that users are using seam to interact with jBPM in a loosely coupled way, which is through the ESB service gateway, not the jBPM integration annotation directly. In this way, we can see the ESB as the session facade, which provides the entries to all of other service, not only jBPM process, but also other services, like web service, ESB service etc.

Now you might feel that seam and jBPM integration is very simple and handy, but it is not a best practice since this is a component-to-component invocation, it is fine that we've just had two components, but if we  have more than two components, especially we are having the ESB into play, it is not recommended to do so. In the SOA world, as the ESB term indicates, it is the bus, other components (here like seam, jBPM) should talk to the ESB, not the end-to-end way, which will lead to the spaghetti issue if we have many components, and most of them are talking to component directly. 

In the future release, we will introduce a set of annotation for seam and ESB integration, it will make users a lot easier to do the seam and ESB integration, just as simple as what we have for the jBPM integration. Before we've had these annotations, it is recommended to do the integration pragmatically that uses the gateway as channel to talk to ESB, and then invoke the target service. (like jBPM process service etc).

"

Comment 3 Dana Mison 2009-12-03 08:11:38 UTC
I need two things if this is going to make it into the docs:

1 - Is this content agreed upon as appropriate/correct ?
2 - Where should it be included in the docs?

Comment 4 Jeff Yu 2009-12-03 11:05:16 UTC
Hi Darrin,

I don't think the content is ready yet.. also not sure if we will include it for SOA 5. 

Comment 5 Dana Mison 2009-12-08 04:33:40 UTC
If this content can't be provided by the end of week, 11th December, then we should move it to 5.0.1

Comment 6 Dana Mison 2010-01-25 00:51:55 UTC
moving to 5.0.1

Comment 7 Dana Mison 2010-03-16 04:23:36 UTC
I need some idea of what is happening with this JIRA so I can schedule docs work for 5.0.1

What volume of material?  e.g. how many pages, diagrams, etc

When will draft material be ready ?

Comment 8 Jeff Yu 2010-03-17 08:02:26 UTC
afaik, I don't think we will have this material in 5.0.1 timeframe.

Comment 9 Len DiMaggio 2011-02-22 19:54:01 UTC
To be verified in the docs for 4.3 CP05


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.