RE: OSWorkflow - initial action for steps?

Pat,

So, as a lurker here for a few months to get to know the OS libraries, I wonder how OSWorkflow would differ from Werkflow then after this collaboration? Would you replace the core OSWorkflow with Werkflow or ...? Just trying to understand what your thoughts are - I'm interested in this thread and would benefit from this new feature, however it is implemented. 

Regards,
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Lightbody [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 8:28 PM
> To: Hani Suleiman; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Opensymphony-developers] OSWorkflow - initial 
> action for steps?
> 
> 
> Yeah, it sounds like a complex problem. I think for version 
> 3.0 we should look in to making the engine a true 
> petrinet-based engine (it's pseudo-petrinet atm) and make 
> complete support for human and machine actions (possibly via 
> a rule engine). Werkflow is supposed to work this way and 
> I've spoken with Bob (I still need to email him back) about 
> possibly collaborating.
> 
> -Pat
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hani Suleiman" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [Opensymphony-developers] OSWorkflow - initial 
> action for steps?
> 
> 
> > One thing to keep in mind though is that actions that are 
> > autoperformed would have to have an unconditional result, 
> there will 
> > probably be validation performed to ensure that a descriptor which 
> > does not have an unambigious action result and has that 
> action set to 
> > autoexecute is reported as an error.
> >
> > On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 10:15 AM, Hubert Felber wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> Any downside to having it in?
> > >
> > > If there was a "step initial function" in the form of a 
> > > pre-function, would it be executed every time you make a 
> transition 
> > > to the same step from within an action? If yes, this 
> could be what 
> > > you wanted, or not. The same is true for "step post functions".
> > >
> > > I vote for the proposal that Alex made. It would be great to have 
> > > all actions with attribute "auto=yes" performed automatically.
> > >
> > > Hubert
> > >
> > >>>> Axel Müller <[email protected]> 05/08/03 08:57am >>>
> > > This sound really good and is what I would like to see soon :-) 
> > > However it is limited to a single "autoaction" per step which 
> > > sometimes
> > >
> > > is not enough.
> > > Why not have an "auto" attribute for each action? When a step 
> > > becomes current step all actions with "auto=yes" will be 
> performed 
> > > automatically with regards to the normal condition/restriction 
> > > behaviour.
> > >
> > > Axel
> > >
> > >
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yup. You understand what I mean.
> > >>
> > >> Pre-functions for steps would work great and would be 
> the cleanest
> > > implementation.
> > >>
> > >> As simple change you could just add an optional attribute in the
> > > "step" element
> > >> that specifies an action to take automatically when the step is
> > > transitioned to..
> > >> like:
> > >>
> > >> <step id="3" name="xxx" autoaction="101">
> > >> <actions>
> > >> <action id="101" name="Starting action...">
> > >> ..
> > >>
> > >> As I said earlier, something like this would help the tool be 
> > >> useful
> > > as a process-
> > >> modelling engine for processes that have no humans..
> > >>
> > >> -Greg
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---- Original Message ----
> > >> From: Hani Suleiman
> > >> Date: Wed 5/7/03 15:35
> > >> To: [email protected]
> > >> Subject: Re: [Opensymphony-developers] OSWorkflow - initial
> > > action for steps?
> > >>
> > >> Hmm, yeah. can't think of a way to do it currently without 
> > >> specifying
> > > a
> > >> pre/post function in every caller. It sounds like you need the 
> > >> option
> > >
> > >> of specifying pre/post functions to steps, not just to 
> actions. Am 
> > >> I right? Does anyone else find this useful? Any 
> objections to it? 
> > >> Any downside to having it in?
> > >>
> > >> Hani
> > >>
> > >> On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 03:59 PM, [email protected] 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> I'm trying to model some workflows that use asynchronous 
> > >>> processing (by sending JMS messages to some other system) in 
> > >>> OSWorkflow and I'm finding it difficult. I can
> > >>> create steps than have actions (called manually ala the 
> example) that
> > >
> > >>> send JMS
> > >>> messages, and I've created a JMS listener that waits 
> for the reply
> > > and
> > >>> invokes the
> > >>> proper action to "complete" the step and let it 
> transition to the
> > > next
> > >>> step, no
> > >>> problem..
> > >>>
> > >>> But once I transition to the next step, say "Step B", 
> there is no 
> > >>> way
> > >
> > >>> to
> > >>> automatically perform an action when the workflow 
> transitions to 
> > >>> that
> > >
> > >>> "step" from
> > >>> somewhere else (maybe from a join, or from some other step's 
> > >>> result).
> > >
> > >>> I cant have
> > >>> every place that could possibly transition to Step B 
> perform the 
> > >>> JMS
> > >
> > >>> action.. the
> > >>> same workflow XML would get propagated all over the 
> place.. I want 
> > >>> Step B to perform the JMS action automatically whenever 
> a workflow 
> > >>> transitions
> > >
> > >>> to it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Seems like what I need is the <initial-actions> stanza within a
> > > <step>
> > >>> definition..
> > >>> That would allow the specified actions to occur whenever a 
> > >>> transition
> > >
> > >>> is performed
> > >>> to that step.
> > >>>
> > >>> What do you think? How hard woud that be?
> > >>>
> > >>> Can you think or any workarounds given the current model? There 
> > >>> doesn't seem to be any hook in the <step> definition that would 
> > >>> allow me to perform an action.. Makes
> > >>> it very difficult to use the product for workflows that are
> > >>> "automatic" sorts of
> > >>> background flows, as opposed to users performing 
> actions directly.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Greg
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa
> > > Clara
> > >>> The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise 
> > >>> solutions www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
> > >>>
> > >>> _____________________________________________
> > > __
> > >>> Opensymphony-developers mailing list 
> > >>> [email protected]
> > >>> 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-develope
> > >>> rs
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -------------------------------------------------------
> > >> Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa 
> > >> Clara The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux 
> > >> enterprise
> > > solutions
> > >> www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Opensymphony-developers mailing list 
> > >> [email protected]
> > >> 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-developer
> > >> s
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -------------------------------------------------------
> > >> Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa 
> > >> Clara The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux 
> > >> enterprise
> > > solutions
> > >> www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Opensymphony-developers mailing list 
> > >> [email protected]
> > >> 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-developer
> > >> s
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa 
> > > Clara The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux 
> enterprise 
> > > solutions www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Opensymphony-developers mailing list 
> > > [email protected]
> > > 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-deve
lopers
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa 
> > Clara The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise 
> > solutions www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Opensymphony-developers mailing list 
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-developers
> >
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara 
> The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise 
> solutions www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensymphony-developers mailing list 
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-developers



-------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions www.enterpriselinuxforum.com

_______________________________________________
Opensymphony-developers mailing list [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-developers


-------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
www.enterpriselinuxforum.com