On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Frank Leymann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Vinod, > > understood. My recommendation is that we should argue as long as possible > independent from a certain implementation: if we may decide to move from > Activiti to Camunda, we should have the architecture/design right to port > our implementation with minimal effort. That's why I argue in terms of the > BPMN recommended state model, and when we agree on the principles we can > map it to the underlying engine. Does this sound acceptable? > > Which brings up the following question: When we support User Tasks in > Activiti, don't we use our HumanTask implementation as User Task as BPMN > 2.0 assumes? But we use the simplified implementation that Activiti ships? > If we do the latter, what is our strategy of our HumanTask implementation? > +1, Soon or Later I think replacing Activiti User Task or introducing as a new type of user task, with our WS-HumanTask it the best option. AFAIR similar idea is in our future roadmap @Hasitha @Nandika : isn't it? -- Milinda Perera Software Engineer; WSO2 Inc. http://wso2.com , Mobile: (+94) 714 115 032
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list [email protected] https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
