I just got the MSDN in the snail mail box and was reading this morning about the new Windows Workflow Foundation (WWF). There is a strong similarity with Biztalk in regards to the Workflow part of BizTalk.
There are some other comments about this comparison. See Darren . Combine this with the news that Scott Woodgate has left the project, I wonder where the BizTalk product is heading to.
Brian Loesgen has published a nice comparison table of BizTalk features v.s. Windows Workflow Foundations.
2 comments:
Larry,
Eric Swift, the product manager for BizTalk said at the BPI Conference last year:
"Yes, when WWF is a better fit, they by all means, put WWF in BizTalk"
WWF is a tool with no hosting engine nor transport system.
BizTalk is a tool with a moderate Work Flow engine, what a perfect combination!
This shouldn't be about BizTalk vs. WWF, this should be about BizTalk and WWF.
James,
You are right that both BizTalk and WWF will benefit from a Rule Management System. It is a pity that all the different rule management system vendors have never agreed on a standard for a rule format. They all use their own internal proprietary format.
The simple Business Rules Composer that ships with BizTalk is often a better choice if you have to take into account the deployment model and the automatic update from one version to another.
The BizTalk rules are already stored into a rule repository (SqlServer) and with some little modifications access control, change management and rule audit log can easily be implemented.
Have a look at Acumen Business rule editors that access these BizTalk rules from a rule repository.
Extending the rule format with Decision trees and Decision tables is just another graphical format.
Defining a complete rule workflow process around this is not that hard as well.
Marco
Post a Comment