1) An activity - a single node on the flow - display a page, send an email, execute this code etc.
2) A Process - a group of activities, logically of course this process itself can be nested as an activity in a flow.
So this is why I tend to use process, it's also neutral enough to (I think) co-exist with the scope's we're used to. Another factor here is that using an overloaded term (like dialog) is acceptable to a native English speaker but can be confusing if English is not your primary language, this would also rule out a term like Wizard.
Duncan
Craig McClanahan wrote:
The only problem I have with "wizard" is that it implies a serial forwards-backwards flow. I can see cases for dialogs :-) with branches in them. (It's the same reason I took standard "next" and "previous" methods back out of the API ... the concept doesn't always apply.
To me, the lifetime of the state information is the key distinguishing feature to this gadget -- so if we don't like "dialog" then maybe some name around that idea would be more appropriate.
Craig
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:16:16 -0500, Sean Schofield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I almost suggested the same thing: "conversation". Its length,
though, could be unfriendly. ConversationController.
What about "dialogue" with the "ue" at the end?
What about "wizard?" This is what we call our own custom solution that we're using now. Wizard generally implies a guided series of steps where you can go forwards and backwards (at least to me it does.)
sean
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
