Years ago one part of our large app suite was written in WF as it seemed trendy and suitable for the task (I suppose it was). But now it's like a lone cuckoos egg in the nest and we want to pull out the working code and put it in a reusable library, but there is so much specialised WF plumbing in the code that it's incomprehensible. Whenever you use a special framework you of often finished up married to it for life! -- *GK*
On 19 January 2017 at 22:14, Scott Barnes <scott.bar...@gmail.com> wrote: > WF alive? you'd be surprised how deep that ball of code runs in the .NET > ecosystem. Killing it is like admitting XAML was a bad idea but when has > that ever stopped Microsoft from quietly sliding the dead corpse under the > bed hoping the smell eventually will subside before admitting the "body is > missing" > > Hot swapping for an alternative option negates the need sadly, as say what > you will about our good ol fashioned WWF it did have a visual design > editor, so its like "derp derp, look i'm multi-threading tasks derp derp". > Its not complicated only if you want it to do all of your code for you > visually or otherwise. > > I've got a boostrapped IISExpress runner already, i can basically stand up > an IISExpress localhost on its own - provided - you have IISExpress already > installed. I did see some rumblings about redistributing the IISExpress > installer .msi with your "app" which i'll suppress the urge to slap the IIS > team upside the head with "you learned nothing from your competitive urges > against WAMP" > > Ideally i'd rather have something a bit more agnostic platform wise (OSX - > mono) which was why i was kind of hoping this science experiment known as > ASP.NET Core / .NET Core (or whatever latest smack head branding was > conjured on the day) - could actually live up to its hope filled promise. > Just like a poor kid in a foster home at Christmas, the adults are being > shifty again. > > It appears however after some googling we're back to the game of "it kinda > works" with comments trailing off mumbling something to the style of "its a > marathon, not a sprint" explanations. > > Dang it, i had a plan people... i'm not saying it was well thought out, > but it had the vision of bold greatness... > > > --- > Regards, > Scott Barnes > http://www.riagenic.com > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Vasileios Samaltanos < > jacarandab...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is WF still alive? From memory I believe the last update was around 2012. >> I doubt that it will ever reach .NET Core. >> >> We used WF for a while but it was too complicated for our needs. We >> developed our own workflow engine around https://github.com/dotnet-stat >> e-machine/stateless and never looked back. >> >> >> On 19 January 2017 at 18:18, Preet Sangha <preetsan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Scott, >>> >>> I don't think WF is available on .net Core yet. So in that case I'd >>> recommend IIS Express as your host. All the WF stuff I did was years ago >>> and it was all IIS based. It's grown considerably easier I hear. >>> >>> Preet >>> >>> >>> regards, >>> Preet, in Auckland NZ >>> >>> >>> On 19 January 2017 at 19:46, Scott Barnes <scott.bar...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I have a need to create a local mini web server which sole job is to >>>> act as a WCF host for local area network clients to feed off. The web >>>> server's main role is to act as a Windows Workflow host that will process >>>> inbound data into various whacky workflow(s). >>>> >>>> The web server is headless in that i don't ever plan on providing a >>>> HTML UI to it, as its really just in place to run long running procs, react >>>> to new inbound data and then answer any local clients requests back with >>>> data (in fact i'd ideally like to keep it locally "swagger"`fied). >>>> >>>> Where are we at with this kind of pattern, any new toys to play with >>>> that makes this easier or should i keep it circa 2009 and below - .NET >>>> wise. >>>> >>>> I'm at the moment leaning towards .NET Core mix but still not sure how >>>> to make Windows Workflow fit into that still (i have to use WWF). >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Regards, >>>> Scott Barnes >>>> http://www.riagenic.com >>>> >>> >>> >> >
