Re: XProc versus BPEL

Again I'd concur on the XProc/BPEL mismatch.

Actually, if you're going to get into comparisons, I also think that ANT
(and its various non-Java incarnations) would be worth adding into the
chart. ANT's more primitive and doesn't have quite the pipelining
capabilities, but it's a good basis for seeing what XProc is trying to
improve upon.

Kurt Cagle
Managing Editor
http://xmlToday.org


On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:19 AM, David A. Lee <dlee@calldei.com> wrote:

> For BPEL dont forget the great open source product
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/activebpel
> They also have a comercial version, but the OS version is quite good.
>
>
> As for comparing XProc and BPEL I also think its a mismatch of intent.
>
> If you want to compare something to XProc I humbly suggest xmlsh (
> www.xmlsh.org) which is targeted at a much more similar set of use cases
> that xproc is (although it can handle non-xml data equally well).   Excepct
> an xproc module to xmlsh (based on calabash) shortly, and possibly a
> "native" xproc implementation in the far future.  But by itself (without the
> xproc plugin) the capibilities and intended use cases are similar, much more
> so then BPEL.
>
> -David
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> David A. Lee
> dlee@calldei.com
> http://www.calldei.com
> http://www.xmlsh.org
>
>
>
>
>
>  2009/4/22 Costello, Roger L. wrote:
>>
>>  I've taken a stab at comparing XProc and BPEL.
>>>
>>
>>  Well, IMHO they have little in common.  The former is targeted at
>> processing XML documents (connecting several processing steps) while
>> the later is a declarative orchestration language for business
>> processes.  Their subjects are not really the same beasts.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Florent Georges
>> http://www.fgeorges.org/
>>
>>
>
>