Pinned topic lombardi vs integration designer
Re: lombardi vs integration designer2012-02-24T17:38:44ZThis is the accepted answer. This is the accepted answer.Hi there,
That is a great question. In the beginning, IBM and Lombardi were competitors. IBM had a product called WebSphere Process Server (WPS) and Lombardi had a product called TeamWorks. IBM then acquired Lombardi and re-named the TeamWorks product to be called WebSphere Lombardi Edition (WLE). In summer 2011, IBM married these two disparate products into one integrated offering called "IBM Business Process Manager" (IBPM). This took the best parts of what was WLE and the best parts of what was WPS and brought them together.
Since you mention that you already know Lombardi, I'll briefly touch on what was "WPS". WPS's philosophy to BPM was all based on Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). The notion was that BPM would be the aggregation of disparate "business services" glued together through a choreography language called "BPEL". WPS provided a first class BPEL engine as well as the richest possible set of ways to integrate with back-end systems through almost every conceivable technology including Web Services, REST, JMS, MQ, DB, EJB, FTP, Files and many more. All of this included transactionality, compensation, auditing, event sequencing and bunch more. Finally, in addition to what was previously mentioned, WPS provided a component called the "Human Task Manager" which provided some of the most feature rich capabilities of human interaction ever seen ... with one notable exception ... UI creation was pretty much left out of the picture with the intent that customers would use which ever UI creation technologies they felt they wanted.
As BPM evolved and BPMN became more prominent (over BPEL), Lombardi started to win more deals than IBM wanted. When analyzed, it was found that the ease of Business Users in creating business processes was better with team works than with WPS (and hence IBM bought Lombardi). However, WPS provided capabilities that TeamWorks could only dream of. WPS's performance characteristics for straight through processes were orders of magnitude higher than Teamworks. WPS had connectivity capabilities and connectivity architectures that others drooled over and WPS had transactionality functions that are still the envy of others.
With the release of IBM BPM, we now have two flavors of that product. We have IBM BPM Standard ... which, to all intents and purposes, is what old users would have known as Lombardi TeamWorks. However, we have a second flavor of the product which is called IBM BPM Advanced which is the aggregation of old TeamWorks with old WPS (neither old products exist in their own rights anymore). IBM BPM Advanced is not a bundling of two products into one box (I can't stress that enough). IBM BPM Advanced is truly a clean integration of the functions of what was TeamWorks and what was WPS into one runtime, shared models, shared functions etc etc.
Now ... to finally answer your question :-)
You are familiar with Process Designer being the development tooling for IBM BPM Standard (Lombardi)? Well, a product called WebSphere Integration Designer (WID) was the development tooling for WPS. Although IBM BPM Advanced is a consolidated runtime and execution environment for both TeamWorks and WPS, the development tooling is not integrated into one development tool. Instead we have two. Process Designer for building BPMN processes and Integration Designer (the replacement for WID) being the tooling for building BPEL and integration functions. Although the tooling is separate and has distinct "looks and feels", the "model" is shared between both tools through the Process Center.
So ... and now the punch line ... you would use Integration Designer if you have IBM BPM Advanced ... and wish to build integration logic that links into the BPMN world, or you wish ultra performing straight through processing, or you need transactionality, or you need event sequencing, or you are building Business Monitor solutions (another story entirely) ...
Hope this helps ... sorry for being wordy ... :-)
deepakanand 270003Q86C20 Posts
Re: lombardi vs integration designer2012-03-01T18:14:38ZThis is the accepted answer. This is the accepted answer.
- deepakanand 270003Q86C
I seem to be one of the guys who posts more than most ... but that is only because I seem to have more time (am more idle?? ... oh oh .. don't let me boss read that) than others. My responses are likely to be flawed or mistaken or ... simply opinion ... so lets make sure that we get responses from as many folks as possible ...
Glad you are enjoying the forum ... keep the questions coming and don't hesitate to jump in with answers or clarifications of your own ... its how we all learn
niraj456 270001RPN82 Posts
Re: lombardi vs integration designer2013-08-22T11:07:14ZThis is the accepted answer. This is the accepted answer.
- kolban 1000000446
Thanks Niel for very informative essay explaining the marriage of IBM WPS and Lombardi.
I have been working on WPS since few years now, having started with WPS v6.0.4 and currently still working on v6.2.
I have never had the opportunity to work with Lombardi Teamworks. I have been reading a lot about the new IBM BPMN 8.0 and the fact that they now have Process Designer for the business analyst guys to design the business processes and Integration Designer (the new avataar of WID if I may say that!) for implementing the business services, integration services, etc.
Since I have not yet had the opportunity to install the BPM Advanced version and play around with Process Designer (PD), Integration Designer(ID) and Process Centre(PC), I do not really understand if it is now mandatory to design the processes only in PD? To put the question in another way, is it necessary now to have all these components in order to be able to implement an IBM BPM solution in production?
Earlier we had the Websphere Business Modeler(WBM) where a business analyst could design a process which can be subsequently imported into WID for implementation. However, the use of WBM was not mandatory. I have been involved with few customers where I have designed and developed the BPM solution in WID based on the business specification which was in the form of just a document and some flow diagrams. And ofcourse for runtime you only need a WPS profile server.
And now when I am evaluating the possibility to move to BPMN 8.0, I am a little confused as to what all components are a 'must have' for developing and running the BPM solution ? Is it not possible to design and develop a complete solution (BPELs, Human Tasks, Integration Adapters,etc) in Integration Developer and host it on a runtime server? or is the use of Process Designer and Process Centre mandatory?
Look forward to receiving some clarification.
Re: lombardi vs integration designer2013-08-22T13:50:14ZThis is the accepted answer. This is the accepted answer.
- niraj456 270001RPN8
To continue to build processes using BPEL, Human Tasks, Integration Adapters etc etc ... then ALL you need is an instance of the product called "Process Server" and a copy of IID. There will be no need for "Process Center". Process Center and its associated development tooling (PD) are only needed if you are building BPMN oriented processes. If you are exclusively building SOA based processes using BPEL, you don't need Process Center.
A.A.A 270005H7JD29 Posts
Re: lombardi vs integration designer2013-08-22T23:30:25ZThis is the accepted answer. This is the accepted answer.
That was an awesome response. I don't always enjoy history tales, but I enjoyed reading this one for sure.
Thanks for the unconditional support you give to this community!!!
email@example.com 270002TGMJ436 Posts
Re: lombardi vs integration designer2013-08-23T11:22:35ZThis is the accepted answer. This is the accepted answer.
- kolban 1000000446
Neil is entirely factually correct.
However, I would encourage pretty much everyone to license at least a few PVUs of a Process Center and a few Process Designers, even if they primarily have a WPS background. The following is all pure opinion on my side, but here are some the reasons why I would encourage you to do that:
* Things like the human task manager are de facto deprecated. Not only are these features of WPS not getting any new features, but they aren't even being supported by 8.x's portal and infrastructure. I used the Human Task Manager as an example, but there are other features as well, such as the rules components. Heavily invested in on the Process Designer side: inheriting from the JRules/WODM engine. Neglected in the last three years on the Integration Designer side: pretty much their for legacy compatibility.
* Although you still can deploy directly from ID to a Process Server, this feels like an ability that only exists for legacy compatibility. Again, this is just opinion, but the Process Center is clearly key to the strategy of the product. It's one of the things IBM believes differentiates their product from the other BPM vendors. I would expect to see it become continually more strategic, especially when it comes to deployment and configuration management.
* There's a whole lot to like in Process Designer/Process Center. You are missing out on most of the products capabilities if you don't use it. However, it is a whole new way of doing things and will take new skills. Better to have an environment that you can learn "the new way of doing things", and maybe do some experiments and/or pilots/prototypes/POCs.
In summary, skipping Process Designer isn't like skipping the old Business Modeler. From what I've heard skipping Business Modeler wasn't even that unusual. You lost almost no functionality by doing so, you avoided the whole "round tripping" problem, and in the end you were deploying the exact same BPEL code as if you had started in Business Modeler. Whereas, if you skip Process Designer/Process Center, you are missing 80% of the product features, you are a deploying differently than 98% of the other users, and you aren't getting the benefit of any of the IBM product engineering in the last 3 years. You essentially are just staying in legacy WPS mode, and not participating in the future (or even the present) of the product.
DavidUpdated on 2013-08-23T11:24:57Z at 2013-08-23T11:24:57Z by firstname.lastname@example.org