Dear Vinod, understood. My recommendation is that we should argue as long as possible independent from a certain implementation: if we may decide to move from Activiti to Camunda, we should have the architecture/design right to port our implementation with minimal effort. That's why I argue in terms of the BPMN recommended state model, and when we agree on the principles we can map it to the underlying engine. Does this sound acceptable?
Which brings up the following question: When we support User Tasks in Activiti, don't we use our HumanTask implementation as User Task as BPMN 2.0 assumes? But we use the simplified implementation that Activiti ships? If we do the latter, what is our strategy of our HumanTask implementation? Best regards, Frank 2016-06-08 11:35 GMT+02:00 Vinod Kavinda <vi...@wso2.com>: > Hi Frank, > Activiti has not defined states compliant with WS-HumanTask. It has only > Created, Claimed and Completed states. > > Regards, > Vinod > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Frank Leymann <fr...@wso2.com> wrote: > >> Dear Vinod, >> >> BPMN 2.0 explicitly refers to WS-HumanTask as implementation of a User >> Task (see pp 166 ff) - although they say that there are many potential >> different implementations, HumanTask is preferred (...and I co-authored >> these sections, summarizing the position of the group ;-)). Thus, BPMN 2.0 >> does not refer to any states because its implementation dependent, but each >> implementation has to define the states - otherwise we run into non-defined >> situations we are discussion here. Has Activiti these states defined? >> >> >> Best regards, >> Frank >> >> 2016-06-06 7:41 GMT+02:00 Vinod Kavinda <vi...@wso2.com>: >> >>> Please find my comments inline.. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> *Task Reassignment at the end of substitution period* >>>>> When a user that was on vacation come back, we will not assign his >>>>> past tasks back to himself from his substitute. Since we cannot track the >>>>> progress of the tasks once it is assigned to a user, this is not >>>>> reasonable. >>>>> We will stop substitution of future tasks at this point. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's not typically what is required. We should at least reassign >>>> tasks that are not yet InProgess. But Ready and Reserved tasks should be >>>> reassigned to the user returned in any case. >>>> >>> >>> Totally agreed to this if it is in a WS-Human task context. >>> >>> We are considering User tasks in BPMN here. In Activiti there is no such >>> notion as task status. There is no such status like "In progress". Once a >>> task is assigned to someone, we have to assume that he is working on it. >>> If we automatically reassign tasks to original user, it will be a mess. >>> (eg: in call centers, user A assign his tasks to B and go out. B is on a >>> call for a task came from B. While he is on call A comes back, tasks get >>> reassigned back to him. He will make another call for the same task, since >>> the task is not completed, complete mix up!!) >>> >>> I don't think we should automatically reassign without the assignee >>> consent. If we really need, we can have a API that a user can retrieve his >>> own tasks thet were substituted to someone else. >>> >>> Vinod Kavinda >>> Software Engineer >>> *WSO2 Inc. - lean . enterprise . middleware <http://www.wso2.com>.* >>> Mobile : +94 (0) 712 415544 >>> Blog : http://soatechflicks.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Vinod Kavinda > Software Engineer > *WSO2 Inc. - lean . enterprise . middleware <http://www.wso2.com>.* > Mobile : +94 (0) 712 415544 > Blog : http://soatechflicks.blogspot.com/ > >
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list Architecture@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
