lenya-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andreas Hartmann <andr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Workflow history file
Date Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:28:03 GMT
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:

> Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> 
>> Hi Lenya developers,
>>
>> what do you think of the following draft of a workflow
>> history file:
>>
>> <wf:history
>>     xmlns:wf="http://apache.org/cocoon/lenya/workflow/1.0"
>>     doctype="simple-document">
>>
>>   <wf:version date="(?)" state="redaktion" user="michael"/>
>>   <wf:version date="(?)" event="publish" state="review" user="gregor"/>
>>
>> </wf:history> 
> 
> 
> I think that the WF history should refer to the WF definition as well. 

OK, that might be a good approach as it would increase the separation
of workflow from the CMS (no reference to doctypes in the workflow
history). Again some refactoring :)
But I have to make sure that no important information is lost.

> Otherwise it is unclear how the states, events and so on are defined.

This way, the mapping to states, events etc. is defined by the mapping
from document types to workflow schemas. But maybe we can leave out this
step (see above).

> I 
> would propose to use an URI to identify a WF definition, it is the 
> standard way of refering to resources at the web and for some 
> applications it probably makes sense to publish the WF definition as 
> well and in that case an URI is a natural way to find it.

Yes, that sounds very reasonable. Then we need a way to map such URIs
to workflow definitions. Is the entity catalog appropriate for this?

> If the WF history is separate from the WF instance, the WF history 
> should refer to the instance identifier as well.

That is done by the location of the history file - the path is equal
to the document ID (= WF instance).

> Is version a relevant name for all activities that are performed in th 
> WF? In the WFMC reference model they use the term activity instead, IIRC.

In the terminology I'm used to the term "activity" describes a process
that is executed during an automaton state. I'm not very pleased with
the term "version", but it was the first to come in my mind.

> XSLT 1.0 is rather weak at date handling, most XSLT processors (e.g. 
> Xalan) implements the date functions from exslt.org however. exslt 
> assumes the dates are represented as in XMLSchema part 2, i.e. as 
> YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss, this is the format that will be used in XPath 2 as 
> well.

OK, we can use that, it seems to be quite standards compliant.

Andreas



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org


Mime
View raw message