| Re: [bpel-dev] Questions about the "empty BPEL" template |
|
Hi, Le 28/10/2011 20:37, Oliver a écrit : I think, you are assuming that a BPEL process should be a valid BPEL process at all stages. In my oppinion, a BPEL process has to be valid at the point, the modeling ist completed. Not all stages, of course. :) But at two moments: at the starting and ending points. To be honest, I don't know any wizard that results in something invalid. For me, it is against the philosophy of a "new file" wizard. A newly created BPEL file is incomplete, but should be valid. For an expert user, I understand the idea of starting from an "empty" BPEL, even if it is marked as invalid. It is more convenient to fill in. It is a blank canvas. But for a new user, an initial error is something which is difficult to understand. He may think there is a bug or that he did something wrong in the wizard. It is a usability issue. The good approach would be IMO to complete the creation wizard for this template, so that the wizard results in a valid process. Said differently, the wizard should ask the starting activity. But this can be a lot of information... Or we could search an empty process that is valid (much better). Or we could also create a specific rule for processes that only have one empty activity (i.e. the WARNING rule). But we would go beyond the specification and this would be a wrong way. Otherwise, we still have the less-perfect solution: display a warning in the wizard when a user picks up the empty template. This way, he knows that what he is about to create will be incomplete (normal) and invalid (unusual). This warning would not be displayed if the process is abstract. The described process is valid if it is used as abstract process. I would not offer process templates dependent on the choice between abstract/executable processes. We could if we want. But the empty template does not address the needs of those who only want to create abstract processes. The empty template is about "freedom", which can be applied for every process. So, I think we agree about that, no need to make it dependent. Either we change the status of this error to WARNING,Please do NOT do that as this affects other BPEL processes, too! I would not discuss it on this mailing-list if I had planned to decide it myself. :) Regards, Vincent. --
Vincent Zurczak R&D Engineer Petals Link - SOA open-source company http://vzurczak.wordpress.com +33 (0) 4 76 96 15 16 |