On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:23:03AM -0800, Alexander Limi wrote:
Specifically, the (now called) Community Workflow needs a 1:1 mapping to
the current WF, and shouldn't really change any IDs anywhere.
Can you say more about this? It sounds like you are saying that:
plone_workflow
Alex Clark wrote:
Martin, are you looking at this or do you want me to
(creating the migration if/when it is needed/wanted) ?
I'm going to look at it on Saturday, but feel free to pre-empt me. :)
Martin
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 03:50:21PM +0100, Raphael Ritz wrote:
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
Hanno Schlichting schrieb:
[..]
Do we really want to update existing sites? They already have their
customized workflows and I don't quite see why we should pollute their
workflow tools with any new ones.
IIRC we discussed this at the Archipelago sprint and at least
at that time there was
Previously Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Hi,
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Alex Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 12:27:18AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I have been looking at the new workflows in the CMFPlone
aclrak-ui-sprint-workflow-integration branch and I'm afraid they
I general I agree; it's mostly a practical issue here because
the old API for adding workflows to the tool is gone and
I simply don't know whether/how GS supports doing only
parts of an import step (import wf x and y but leave z alone;
don't touch the chains ...) but maybe it's just me and all
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
I general I agree; it's mostly a practical issue here because
the old API for adding workflows to the tool is gone and
I simply don't know whether/how GS supports doing only
parts of an import step (import wf x and y but leave z alone;
don't touch the chains ...) but maybe
Hi Raphael,
On 2/28/07, Raphael Ritz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
I general I agree; it's mostly a practical issue here because
the old API for adding workflows to the tool is gone and
I simply don't know whether/how GS supports doing only
parts of an import step (import
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
[..]
I need to look at this in more detail, but we'd need to find a way of
doing it at a lower level. Hell, I'd copy the XML-parsing code and
make it more defensive if necessary. :)
My hope (without looking at the code in detail) was that the logic
that parses the
