Re: 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

Maybe a silly question:

Is there a reason to allow only unconditional-results in actions that
are autoperformed? 

Hubert



>>> Hani Suleiman <[email protected]> 05/08/03 09:03pm >>>
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-a
ctions> 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-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 
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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