I think that in a real-like application, workflows will be stored in databases along with some meta-data and fully versioned. They are not really url's (although they can be addressed by their urls if needed. They are resources after all )
Workflows can be launched by a user and may need some input, others are launched via a remote invocation (and the parameters are passed in). So for a user-based launch capability, you need form support. And you probably do not want to keep customizing your application by adding views... Hopefully, XForms will be integrated in FireFox soon. Unless someone has a better solution. Pat. > From: John Mettraux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:50:19 +0900 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [openwferu-dev] Re: Densha launch with parameters > > > Hi, > > On 9/15/07, cappelaere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> How would you handle launching workflows from Densha when they require >> parameters? > > The old OpenWFE(ja) was using launchitems or launchurls. The current > Densha only uses launchurls. > In a later release it will be possible to have the URLs of a > serialized launchitem (YAML / XML / JSON). Now the question is : that > launchitem will reference a workflow definition URL, should that URL > be in the list of authorized URLs of the launcher ? Should we > indirectly trust the URL because it's mentioned in a launchitem whose > URL is trusted ? > > The process example : > http://openwferu.rubyforge.org/svn/trunk/densha/public/process_definitions/vac > ation_request_0.rb > > takes another approach : the initial participant in the process is set > to the launcher of the process, so that parameters can be given. > Initial key/values are set just before via 'set' expressions (placed > outside of the main block to mark them as some kind of 'initial > parameters'). > > >> Would the workflow designer design an XForm to go with it? > > That would make for a "form designer" ;) > I escaped the problem until now by using some javascript code. In > later releases, I'd like to have a dedicated workitem field for > stating which form / form engine should be used. > The current, cheap, javascript engine could remain, and we could have > rails partials, custom javascript templates and why not FormFaces (I > have not yet studied their double licensing scheme) like you did for > GeoBPMS. > > Maybe I should not worry too much, and let Densha remain a showcase. > > > What do you think ? > > -- > John Mettraux -///- http://jmettraux.openwfe.org > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenWFEru dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openwferu-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
