Pros of bpmn-js

• Lightweight and flexible: Can be easily integrated into web applications
• Extensive API: Offers more customization options for developers
• Supports rendering and interaction with BPMN diagrams in browsers

Cons of bpmn-js

• Requires more setup and configuration for a full-fledged modeling experience
• Limited out-of-the-box features compared to Camunda Modeler
• May need additional plugins or modules for advanced functionality

Code Comparison

bpmn-js:

import BpmnModeler from 'bpmn-js/lib/Modeler';

const modeler = new BpmnModeler({
  container: '#canvas',
  keyboard: { bindTo: document }
});

modeler.importXML(xmlString, function(err) {
  if (err) console.error('Error importing BPMN diagram', err);
});

Camunda Modeler:

const { app, BrowserWindow } = require('electron');

function createWindow() {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({ width: 800, height: 600 });
  win.loadFile('index.html');
}

app.whenReady().then(createWindow);

The code snippets highlight the difference in usage: bpmn-js is typically used as a library in web applications, while Camunda Modeler is a standalone desktop application built with Electron.

Pros of Flowable Engine

• More comprehensive workflow engine with support for BPMN, CMMN, and DMN
• Higher performance and scalability for enterprise-level applications
• Extensive API and integration options for various programming languages

Cons of Flowable Engine

• Steeper learning curve due to its broader feature set
• Less focus on visual modeling, primarily a backend engine
• May be overkill for simpler workflow requirements

Code Comparison

Flowable Engine (Java):

ProcessEngine processEngine = ProcessEngines.getDefaultProcessEngine();
RuntimeService runtimeService = processEngine.getRuntimeService();
ProcessInstance processInstance = runtimeService.startProcessInstanceByKey("myProcess");

Camunda Modeler (JavaScript):

const modeler = new BpmnModeler({
  container: '#canvas',
  propertiesPanel: {
    parent: '#properties-panel'
  }
});
modeler.importXML(bpmnXML);

While Flowable Engine focuses on process execution and management, Camunda Modeler is primarily a visual modeling tool. Flowable Engine provides a robust backend for process automation, whereas Camunda Modeler offers a user-friendly interface for creating and editing BPMN diagrams. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements and the desired balance between backend functionality and visual modeling capabilities.

Pros of Activiti

• More lightweight and easier to integrate into existing Java applications
• Offers a wider range of supported databases out-of-the-box
• Provides a simpler API for basic workflow management tasks

Cons of Activiti

• Less comprehensive modeling capabilities compared to Camunda Modeler
• Smaller community and ecosystem, resulting in fewer extensions and plugins
• Limited support for complex BPMN 2.0 elements and advanced execution scenarios

Code Comparison

Activiti process definition:

<process id="myProcess" name="My Process">
  <startEvent id="start" />
  <userTask id="userTask" name="User Task" />
  <endEvent id="end" />
  <sequenceFlow sourceRef="start" targetRef="userTask" />
  <sequenceFlow sourceRef="userTask" targetRef="end" />
</process>

Camunda process definition:

<bpmn:process id="myProcess" name="My Process" isExecutable="true">
  <bpmn:startEvent id="start" />
  <bpmn:userTask id="userTask" name="User Task">
    <bpmn:extensionElements>
      <camunda:formData>
        <camunda:formField id="field1" label="Field 1" type="string" />
      </camunda:formData>
    </bpmn:extensionElements>
  </bpmn:userTask>
  <bpmn:endEvent id="end" />
  <bpmn:sequenceFlow sourceRef="start" targetRef="userTask" />
  <bpmn:sequenceFlow sourceRef="userTask" targetRef="end" />
</bpmn:process>