Making your e-business work  

Home

Standards
    Conformance
    Reference Model
    Public Documents
    XPDL_2.0
    Wf-XML 2.0



About WfMC

Events

Information and
Publications


Free downloads

Membership Information

Press Room

Excellence Awards

Marvin L Manheim Award

Workflow Handbook
   2001
   2002
   2003

   2004
   2005
   2006 NEW!


Associated sites:
AIIM
WARIA

e-workflow.org

Got a question?
Join our Discussion Forums
 Discussion Forum for Workgroups (WfMC-specific)

Workflow and BPM Research

BPM Community Forum
 


Wf-XML Resolved Issues

Issue 1
Interfaces

Resolution: The method name alone is enough to define the unique behaviour. If a differrent behaviour is required,

then a different method name will be used.

Keith Swenson CT0001 Originally interfaces was a concept to logically group methods together with the idea that if a

resource implements one function in an interface, it must implement them all. They were just well

known groups of methods. It important to be able to ask a resource what methods it implements,

and interfaces is an easy way to do this. This doc takes the concept a little further by also

providing a sort of name scoping, where both the interface name and the method name must be

specified on every operation. This is clarified in Example 5. This should not be necessary, since

there are not many methods and they are unique. It further may prove problematic when an interface

gets extended. For example, the Activity interface extends the Observer interface, so certain

methods are in both. When calling such a method, which interface do you specify? What I don’t

understand is that a completely different treatment of interface name is shown in Appendix C in the

details of the JCALS implementation. In the example of an XML Request the interface is specified

as a separate data element surrounded by <interface> tags. This seems a lot more reasonable, since

the interface could be ignored if desired. It would seem that implementation this way could be

optional. In any case one representation should be specified.

Keith Swenson CT0102 I don’t know of any methods which are defined to behave differently in different interfaces. This

would be a very bad design idea. If there are any, we should change them to have unique names.

CSC/JCALS RW0002 Do Not Agree. Interfaces and methods have a parent/child relationship. The same method may

behave differerently within different interfaces. Also depending on the implementation the

interface data element could be optional.

Keith Swenson RW0028 The interface is a designation of a group of interface methods. The interface is useful for

specification reasons only. A resource claiming to implement an interface will implement all of the

methods of that interface. Failure to implement even a single method of an interface means that the

interface is not implemented. A method can be part of more than one interface. The name of the

interface never appears in the actual exchange of data. The WF-XML spec has two contradictory

uses of interfaces that needs to be clarified and made consistent.

Issue 3
ProcessInstance.PropFind Parameter "Creator"

Resolution: The name of the user who create the process instance.

Rainer Weber CT0033 2.9 ProcessInstance.PropFind: Parameter "Creator" This is supposed to be a user. What happens if

the process is started via SWAP (a URL). Should we look for a more general term than a user?

Proposal: More general term.

Friday, June 09, 2000 Page 1 of 18
First Previous Next Last
Standards
Published Docs
Standards
Reference Model
Conformance
XPDL support

Wf-XML 2.0
 

Information Services
Info Services
Awards
Books
Workflow Handbook

Membership
How to join
Application
Country Chapters
List of members
Officers
Fellows


NEW!

Workflow Handbook 2006
NOW SHIPPING!



CDROM Companion to the Workflow Handbook 2005

 

horizontal rule

home | membership | standards | info | events | members only

All brand names and product names mentioned in this website are trademarks or service marks of their respective companies. Any omission or misuse should not be regarded as intent to infringe on the property of others. The WfMC recognizes and respects all marks used by companies, manufacturers and developers as a means to distinguish their products. The “WfMC” logo and “Workflow Management Coalition” are service marks of the Workflow Management Coalition. http://www.wfmc.org.

horizontal rule