Example: Use of BPM to monitor an ESB-centric integration

FOR OMG BPM/SOA COP WORKING SUB-GROUP, 2010-06-02

EXAMPLE: USE OF BPM TO MONITOR AN ESB-CENTRIC INTEGRATION

Alexander SamarinRichard Vigniel

Teamlog (Suisse) S.A.

The situation

• Business issue– Some « pieces of work » got lost between

applications which are involved in a business process– Degree of synchronisation of some applications is low

• Technical issues– No overall coordination or monitoring over those

applications– The business process is implicit– Need for the real-time monitoring for IT– Need for the real-time monitoring for business– There is no « bigger » architecture

22010-06-02

Example: Use of BPM to monitor an ESB-centric integration


ESB-centric view – only flow of data

Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)

Application 1Application 1



2010-06-023 Example: Use of BPM to monitor an ESB-centric integration


Process-centric view – bothflow of control and flow of data

Process




Primary importance – the result of working together, but not individual exchanges (like in the football)



Context

• The business goal (short-term)– Implement monitoring WITHOUT disruptive changes in

the infrastructure – simple, quick and cheap

• The techniques– Make the process explicit– Discuss monitoring approaches

• Use the architectural approach to– Mix BPM, SOA, ESB, BAM, BEM, CEP– Select tools which are good citizens (not expensive, easy

to deploy, fit to existing culture, real “worker”, not exotic, etc.)

52010-06-02



In-house understanding of the process

• Imagine a token moving through this process – any need for loops?

• Merging isimplicit

• Too technical• Actually it is the

production line• Good for

e-gov?

62010-06-02



• Three parts of the tax declaration– La décision de taxation ICC/IFD,

– Le ou les factures associées (parfois aucune),

– Le relevé de compte.

• Merging is explicit (SP01 and SP02)• Only business activities are visible

Tax declaration-centric version of the process

7

Click for animation

2010-06-02Example: Use of BPM to monitor an ESB-centric integration


• Takeover time between blocks• SLA of each block

What to monitor?

8

SLA SLA SLASLA SLA SLA

Takeover time

Takeover time

Takeover time



SLA of each block

• The message event (E02) which should throw an alarm after the timer event (E01) is not activated because of the cancel event (E03)

92010-06-02



Takeover time between blocks

• The exclusive event gateway (G01) is waiting for the end of transition (E04) or timer (E05). The latter initiate an alarm.

102010-06-02



General recommendations

• Both block SLA and takeover time can be monitored in different ways

• Block SLA can be monitored by a particular tool itself • Takeover time should be monitored by a “third” party • Monitoring should take into considerations

dependencies between events – if a tool is broken there is no need to alarm about SLA of process instances which use this tool (similar to NAGIOS functionality)

112010-06-02



Control process in this POC



Integration with the ESB

• Transformation and technical routing of messages by the ESB• Transmission of message into queues JMS

App1 App2

ESB(technical routing and transformation)

2010-06-0213Example: Use of BPM to monitor an ESB-centric

integration


Definition of metrics



Capture of metrics



Format of the message

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"

xmlns:tax="http://www.example.org/TaxationEvent"><soapenv:Header><addr:To xmlns:addr="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">jms:/processes/POCVaud/

ProcessControl/TaxationControlProcess/UNIREG?transport.jms.ConnectionFactoryJNDIName=QueueConnectionFactory&java.naming.factory.initial=org.apache.activemq.jndi.ActiveMQInitialContextFactory&java.naming.provider.url=tcp://localhost:61616</addr:To>

<addr:Action xmlns:addr="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">http://example.com/ProcessControl/TaxationControlProcess/ForUNIREG/EventStartMessage</addr:Action>

</soapenv:Header><soapenv:Body>

<tax:TaxationEvent> <tax:NoContribuale>10000455</tax:NoContribuale> <tax:NoTaxation>1</tax:NoTaxation> <tax:NoVersion>1</tax:NoVersion> <tax:AnneeFiscale>2008</tax:AnneeFiscale> <tax:TypeImpot>IRF</tax:TypeImpot> </tax:TaxationEvent>

</soapenv:Body></soapenv:Envelope>



Test scenario

• A java application generates and sends the following messages into JMS queues– 30 messages « Start monitoring »

– 28 messages « End of Taxations »

– 24 messages « End of Facturations »



Report – initial view

No process instances



Messages « Start monitoring» sent

30 instances are instantiated



Messages « End of Taxations » sent

28 instances in the state « tax »

Ratio of groupping = 0%



Messages « End of Facturation » sent

24 instances terminated

Ratio of groupping = 85%(24/28)



Report Designer

Data Sets

Mise en page

Propriétés



Conclusion

• Intalio|BAM (BIRT) allowes quick implementation of complex reports

• Deep knowledge of SQL is mandatory• Drill down feature has not been tested• Messages have been transformed by the ESB• Intalio|BPM facilitates the capture of metrics• BPM does not bring a lot in this example, because the

process is simple and passive (or shadow)• BPM added values comes from complex rules which

are explicitely expressed (in comparison with CEP)• BPM with active processes is naturally integrated with

BAM



Thank you!

Contact information:

Alexander Samarin

[email protected]


Example: Use of BPM to monitor an ESB-centric integration

Technology

Transcript of Example: Use of BPM to monitor an ESB-centric integration