| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Siebel Workflow |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| RichA |
 Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 6:19 am Post subject: Siebel Workflow |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 14 Mar 2002
Posts: 102
|
How hard is it to translate workflow processes between Siebel workflow and MQ Workflow?
I have a customer with a possible requirement of using Siebel to perform the driving of workflow, but also to integrate with MQ Workflow where a translated mirror of the Siebel workflow flow exists, with each step of the Siebel workflow it fires a message to WBIMB, which passes it to an MQ Workflow process. The process flow is then monitored by WBI Monitor to perform reporting which you (apparently) don't get with Siebel workflow.
This is a bit um, backward, for want of a polite term as far as I'm concerned, but I'm just performing some requirements analysis as it seems possible they're going to insist on this or something like it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Rich:
I don't know about the Siebel part, but I have been involved with several of these workflows that are as you say "um, backward". I call them "non-traditional uses" of MQWF. Essentially MQWF is used to keep state for some business process. It does not drive the process. MQWF likes to drive, but it can be used as you are describing.
GOOD LUCK
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RichA |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 14 Mar 2002
Posts: 102
|
How do you deal with all the issues that are involved, maintenance, administration?
I mean I've recognised there's a requirement for handling orphaned MQ Workflow instances, they also need to collaborate between Siebel workflow developers and MQ workflow developers and making any changes is likely to require changes by both sides. What other issues have you found? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Rich:
The way I view the thing is that the model is controled from the outside. So every place there is a "milestone" in the outside process, there will be an activity in the MQWF process. These activities I assign to a "WAIT" user and they are never actually run. When the milestone is hit the outside process has to use the MQWF API to ForceFinishWithContainer the MQWF activity. That is the basic way I have been handling these types of "MQWF as state machine" processes. I think that it really depends on your individual situation as to what all the issues would be.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RichA |
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 14 Mar 2002
Posts: 102
|
| Things are starting to get interesting, they're modelling processes in Rational Rose, the processes are then being manually implemented in Siebel (I don't know how they go about this), I've not used Rational before, is it possible to get processes from Rational into WBI modeller, and then on into workflow and how much tweaking is involved to get it to work? I'm expecting the Rational people to only supply enough information for the Siebel people to implement their workflows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| imulyadi |
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Hi Richard-
I just wondering whether your client ends up in implementing the Siebel - Workflow solution. I hope you don't mind sharing some of the experience on this.
Thanks,
Irawan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
