AnsweredAssumed Answered

Differences between Acitiviti PVM and jBPM PVM versions

Question asked by romanoff on Apr 8, 2011
Latest reply on Apr 8, 2011 by tombaeyens

I'm an Acitiviti newbie.

My company is planning to use BPMN2.0 for certain processes, but it also investigates the
possibility of building a custom domain-specific BPM engine and tooling arund it.

Acitiviti seems to be a very interesting solution to achieve that.
When it comes to our plans to build a domain-specific BPM engine, PVM seems to be a very attractive alternative. Or is it too low-level for this purpose and something higher-level (and less frequently changing) should be used, e.g. jPDL?

But short investigation has shown that several open-source BPM engines are using PVM (e.g. Activiti, jBPM, Orchestra, etc). Unfortunately, they all use their own "tweaked" implementation of PVM. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to decide which of those PVM implementations is the most advanced or feature-rich and where are the differences. It is also not quite clear when they were forked off the original implementation (was it jBPM 4.x?) and which features they include today.

Therefore, I'd like to ask about Acitviti's PVM implementation. How is it different from other PVMs (e.g. from the (original?) one described here What new features were added or planned? Which features were removed? Which languages besides BPMN2.0 are supported out of the box or can be easily added? How does it compare to other implementations available today?

Are there any plans to aim for PVM implementations alignment between different projects/vendors?