On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 06:40:40PM -0300, romina wrote: > Hello All, > thanks for the new release for the process definition :) I was testing it, > and I found some inconsistences with the old examples that comes in the > workflow-definitions folder. So it must be that the examples are not > synchronized. > Well, below you can see some of them, most of them satisfy the schema after > you change <workflow-definition> by <process-definition>. > ____________________________________________________________________________
Hola Romina, thanks for the feedback. Indeed <workflow-definition> and <subprocess-definition> have been deprecated although the engine understands them. I replied to your forum post : http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1373437&forum_id=181920 > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > If the engine is not using right now the process definition, how can you > know if a process definition file that an user is defining is ok or not... > Could you give me some directions where is that code? > Thanks in advance... If you want to know if your process definition makes sense for the engine, you have to use the validator (without necessarily using its embedded XSD validation). Its documentation is at : http://www.openwfe.org/docbook/build/ch06s03.html Saludos, -- john.mettraux @ openwfe.org -///- http://www.openwfe.org ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information _______________________________________________ OpenWFE - Open source WorkFlow Engine OpenWFE-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openwfe-users
