You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lenya.apache.org by Andreas Hartmann <an...@apache.org> on 2003/06/10 10:16:10 UTC
Workflow Roadmap
Hi Lenya developers,
before contiunuing the discussion about the workflow schema
language specification, I would like to know your opinion
about the general WF integration roadmap for Lenya.
Up to now, my idea was to implement a minimal feature set
with a minimum of costs to keep changes cheap and to avoid
unnecessary work that will be obsolete. I always kept in
mind that it must be possible to integrate a more complex
engine.
At the moment, there are two discussions going on:
(1) On our list, Gregor and Daniel point out the benefits of
a solid and usable WF description language.
(2) On OSCOM, many people seem to be in need of a WF engine
to be used in CMS. It looks like they want to get started
with a common WF project.
IMHO this leads to the following questions:
(a) Which way do we want to go for the time being?
If we follow the path that I suggested, we don't invest more
research on the current solution but do it the agile way
(KISS + be ready to implement changes rapidly).
If we invest much time on the development of our engine and
decide to switch to a general solution, the time might be wasted.
If we go the agile way, there is the risk of getting difficulties
when more complex features are needed. We would have to decide
if we want to implement these features or if we drop our code
and integrate an external solution.
(b) How much do we want to invest on following / influencing
external (WF) projects? IMHO this is a quite important question.
If we jump on the OSCOM WF train, we could probably influence
the project. But it is worth the efforts?
So, how do you feel about the further WF development?
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Workflow Roadmap
Posted by Andreas Hartmann <an...@apache.org>.
Alex McLintock wrote:
[...]
> My gut feeling is that workflow is *complicated* and that although we
> might want to implement a small feature workflow system ourselves that
> wont please everyone.
>
> My guess is that we should push for a common WF project - whether it is
> OSCOM or Apache or whatever....
>
> So I guess I am asking for a "WF API" which means that we can implement
> a noddy built-in WF engine ourselves if we have time, but incorporate a
> 3rd party WF engine later on.
OK, this is the API:
org.apache.lenya.workflow
The "noddy built-in WF engine" is:
org.apache.lenya.workflow.impl
We have only a few CMS-specific classes:
org.apache.lenya.cms.workflow
> Of course I know nothing about the definition of such a WF API :-(
We implemented a minimal interface for an automaton that
has only the features we need.
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Workflow Roadmap
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Andreas Hartmann wrote, On 11/06/2003 11.49:
> Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>
>> I think that one should look closely at existing wheels before
>> spending much
>> energy reinventing new ones.
>
>
> We evaluated all these engines and a few more.
> None had met our requirements and was simple enough.
Simpler than this? ;-)
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/metamorphosis/krysalis-sandbox/
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Workflow Roadmap
Posted by Andreas Hartmann <an...@apache.org>.
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> I think that one should look closely at existing wheels before spending much
> energy reinventing new ones.
We evaluated all these engines and a few more.
None had met our requirements and was simple enough.
Andreas
>
> Here are a few Open Source workflow projects which I have found:
> http://wiki.cocoondev.org/Wiki.jsp?page=Workflow
>
> I am not against a "noddy built-in" engine as a short term solution.
>
> Andreas
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex McLintock" <al...@owal.co.uk>
> To: "Lenya Developers List" <le...@cocoon.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Workflow Roadmap
>
>
>
>>At 10:16 10/06/03 +0200, you wrote:
>>
>>>(1) On our list, Gregor and Daniel point out the benefits of
>>> a solid and usable WF description language.
>>>
>>>(2) On OSCOM, many people seem to be in need of a WF engine
>>> to be used in CMS. It looks like they want to get started
>>> with a common WF project.
>>
>>My gut feeling is that workflow is *complicated* and that although we
>
> might
>
>>want to implement a small feature workflow system ourselves that wont
>>please everyone.
>>
>>My guess is that we should push for a common WF project - whether it is
>>OSCOM or Apache or whatever....
>>
>>So I guess I am asking for a "WF API" which means that we can implement a
>>noddy built-in WF engine ourselves if we have time, but incorporate a 3rd
>>party WF engine later on.
>>
>>Of course I know nothing about the definition of such a WF API :-(
>>
>>
>>(Sorry for being in-active lately - I am in perl mode)
>>
>>Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Workflow Roadmap
Posted by Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>.
I think that one should look closely at existing wheels before spending much
energy reinventing new ones.
Here are a few Open Source workflow projects which I have found:
http://wiki.cocoondev.org/Wiki.jsp?page=Workflow
I am not against a "noddy built-in" engine as a short term solution.
Andreas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex McLintock" <al...@owal.co.uk>
To: "Lenya Developers List" <le...@cocoon.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Workflow Roadmap
> At 10:16 10/06/03 +0200, you wrote:
> >(1) On our list, Gregor and Daniel point out the benefits of
> > a solid and usable WF description language.
> >
> >(2) On OSCOM, many people seem to be in need of a WF engine
> > to be used in CMS. It looks like they want to get started
> > with a common WF project.
>
> My gut feeling is that workflow is *complicated* and that although we
might
> want to implement a small feature workflow system ourselves that wont
> please everyone.
>
> My guess is that we should push for a common WF project - whether it is
> OSCOM or Apache or whatever....
>
> So I guess I am asking for a "WF API" which means that we can implement a
> noddy built-in WF engine ourselves if we have time, but incorporate a 3rd
> party WF engine later on.
>
> Of course I know nothing about the definition of such a WF API :-(
>
>
> (Sorry for being in-active lately - I am in perl mode)
>
> Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Workflow Roadmap
Posted by Alex McLintock <al...@owal.co.uk>.
At 10:16 10/06/03 +0200, you wrote:
>(1) On our list, Gregor and Daniel point out the benefits of
> a solid and usable WF description language.
>
>(2) On OSCOM, many people seem to be in need of a WF engine
> to be used in CMS. It looks like they want to get started
> with a common WF project.
My gut feeling is that workflow is *complicated* and that although we might
want to implement a small feature workflow system ourselves that wont
please everyone.
My guess is that we should push for a common WF project - whether it is
OSCOM or Apache or whatever....
So I guess I am asking for a "WF API" which means that we can implement a
noddy built-in WF engine ourselves if we have time, but incorporate a 3rd
party WF engine later on.
Of course I know nothing about the definition of such a WF API :-(
(Sorry for being in-active lately - I am in perl mode)
Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org