nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

As we transition to the new Hyland Community, some post links may be temporarily disrupted as we finalize redirects. We apologize for the inconvenience and are working to resolve this as quickly as possible. Details.

Roadmap?

unknown-user

Hi guys,

If I'm right, many BPMN 2.0 elements are not supported by Activiti yet (not in terms of modelling, but in terms of execution, i.e. timer start events, intermediate events, etc.).

Is that right?

Is there a list of what is supported and what not?

Is there a roadmap by when the BPMN 2.0 elements will be implemented?

Thanks,
Markus

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

sruiz

I'm interested in the answer too.

As we can see in the forums, the questions are around the Activiti Engine (95% of topics!!!). The user interfaces are less important by the statistics.

I think that the users enjoy working and playing with the process engine and apply the BPMN 2.0. But the number of implemented artefacts is still slow.

On the other hand, BPMN 2.0 is like a language and not a modelling diagram. You can explain the same thing with different words and you can develop the same behaviour with a different model.

For example, you can simulate the inclusive gateway for two activities with a parallel gateway followed by two exclusive gateways.

Now I'm trying to play with intermediate events with a service task for a throwing event and a serviceTask + receiveTask for the catching event.

With less words you have to explain more and with less elements your models are complexer.
I agree with you, "naggy"

ronald_van_kuij

But the number of implemented artefacts is still slow.

The order and speed of implementing them is partly based on 'user/customer request'. One of the constructs that was requested a few times was the loop and/or multi-instance (for each). The foreach was on the roadmap for 5.2 and will be implemented for this release, so it is 'on time'

The error boundary event, planned for 5.5. is actually being implemented now (already some code in svn) so that is even 'early'. Slow implementation is therefor not what I'd use to describe the speed 🙂

If there are other constructs that are important to more than one user, the first thing to do is discuss it in the forum, file a jira issue (if not already present) and then to collect votes. (I'm not going to mention helping out by implementing things yourself ;-))

On the other hand, BPMN 2.0 is like a language and not a modelling diagram.

It is both… That is one of the big changes between BPMN 1 and 2

You can explain the same thing with different words and you can develop the same behaviour with a different model.
For example, you can simulate the inclusive gateway for two activities with a parallel gateway followed by two exclusive gateways.

Sure, but the model will still be based on BPMN2 right? So the language (in case of Activiti) will still be the bpmn2 xml compared to other engines that output BPEL.

It is correct that some constructs are convenience ones, just like the engine is a convenience compared to programming everything in java.

Now I'm trying to play with intermediate events with a service task for a throwing event and a serviceTask + receiveTask for the catching event.

With less words you have to explain more and with less elements your models are complexer.

Depends… if the 'word' is understood by everyone (e.g. the more complex behaviour of an inclusive gateway) then additional explanation is not required.

sruiz

If there are other constructs that are important to more than one user, the first thing to do is discuss it in the forum, file a jira issue (if not already present) and then to collect votes.

I know the process and I opened a JIRA a moth ago about the more important event type from my point of view. Please, users, vote my JIRA!!!

(I'm not going to mention helping out by implementing things yourself ;-))

I'm not requesting help about how to implement my models :? . I'm not creating a extra package for Activiti. But I need in my model a behaviour and I need to make something.

I've tried to say to naggy: Don't stop modelling if you doesn't have the artefacts you need. With the current artefacts you can continue modelling. But you have to make a more complex model.

Understand me, I'm a business analyst who wants to use your tool. And if the tool has a low number of kind of activities, my models are complexer. I'm Quality Manager of a medium size company and I think that a organization can be structured with BPM. If I show to a final user(participant) a very complex BPM diagram they will not understand anything.

Complex diagrams mean:

Huge number of elements in general. My experience is that more than 15 elements in a diagram (process) means that the participants doesn't understand what they are doing.
Huge number of service tasks which they don't understand but they notice that depends on them.
Huge number of gateways->sequence flows. The participant loose in the diagram.

Shall I show a diagram to the participants and a totally different process with Activiti? I think that this no the objective of a BPMN suite.

But until Activiti can implement other artefacts, we haven't to stop. To stop means to leave the tool.

sruiz wrote:
On the other hand, BPMN 2.0 is like a language and not a modelling diagram.

It is both… That is one of the big changes between BPMN 1 and 2

I agree, Roland. I should write BPMN 2.0 is more a language than a diagramming model and BPMN 2.0 is BOTH.