ObjectWeb Consortium
Search ObjectWeb Mail Archive: 

Advanced Search - Powered by Google

Mail Archive Home | jawe List | May 2004 Index

<--  Date Index  --> <--  Thread Index  -->

RE: [jawe] Start/End bubbles


well, I think shape and text (name) it is not important, but it is
defnitely important to clearly display start and end point.
If start and end bubbles are removed, the workflow model will
become less easy to read.

Another way, following the idea of removing the bubbles, would 
probably be coloring of start and end activities.
As the editor knows start and end activities (by counting transitions)
it could automatically change the background color (we could keep blue 
and yellow, for instance) of that particular activity boxes.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen
   / Best Regards,
Ing. Peter Wagner
BM.I Support Unit ZMR
Tel: +43 1 31346 39159

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael N. Lipp [mailto:mnl@xxxxxx]
Sent: Dienstag, 18. Mai 2004 12:51
To: jawe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [jawe] Start/End bubbles

Sasa Bojanic wrote:

>But if XPDL creator wants one can easily determine start/ends (no matter of
editor being used), he can give them appropriate names,
>but we can't force creator to create start/end activities with fixed names
to "Start" and "End" or something (in your use case, we
>can suggest it, but not fix it). Also, I suppose that every XPDL editor
will recognize possible start/ends based on number of
>incoming/outgoing transitions which should be zero (this is how JaWE does
it), and then display it in its own way (by coloring them,
>adding bubbles, ...).
I didn't suggest fixed names, just defaults. What I think of is having 
three icons (or menu entry entries) "Start", "End" or "Activity" (just 
like it is currently). When inserting the "start bullet" in the diagram, 
you get an additional dialog querying how to implement start (as route, 
subflow or generic activity) then the start bullet is inserted in the 
diagram just as it is currently (with -- maybe -- a default name 
"Start", but this is really a minor issue).

The context menu of the start bullet now does not only include "delete" 
as it does today, but also "Properties", which displays the properties 
dialog as appropriate for the activity type chosen when creating the 
start bullet. The dialog has an additional check item "Start-activity" 
which is checked. When unchecked, the activity looses its "start" 
property and is displayed (and handled) just like any other activity of 
the chosen type.

While being a start activity, however, the activity is displayed as 
yellow bullet, it cannot be chosen as the end point of a transition, and 
verification says "yes, there is a start activity, the process is OK (in 
this respect)". Of course, you can consider any activity without an 
incoming transition a start activity (that's the way we do it). But the 
impression I got from Peter Wagner's mail was that there is a demand for 
explicitly marking start- and end activities, for documentation 
purposes, and e.g. to enable verification to determine if every activity 
can be reached from one of the given start activities (or whatever you 
want to verify).

All this is just a suggestion that came to mind when I read the recent 
mails. I know that we have quite different attitudes towards those 
start- and end-bullets as our previous discussion some months ago has 
shown. I just wanted to share the idea and I hope, it has become clear 
by now. Wether you want to go in this direction or not is, obviously, 
absolutely up to you.

 - Michael

<--  Date Index  --> <--  Thread Index  -->

Reply via email to:

Powered by MHonArc.

Copyright © 1999-2005, ObjectWeb Consortium | contact | webmaster.