Jörn Nettingsmeier schrieb:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier schrieb:
i'm not sure if i understand this. right now, the following seems to
happen when somebody creates a document with the default creator:
* a new document is created by copying the doctype sample;
* a metadata file is created.
this metadata has no <workflowVersion/> elements yet. all i'm asking
is that upon creation, a workflowVersion entry with number 0 and
"event:create" is created, stating the date of creation and the user
who did it.
That would require that the workflow schema contains a state
"non-existent" with a transition to the state "authoring", triggered
by the event "create". Does this make sense? What do the others think?
i see the problem now, thanks for explaining. but these states could be
implicit, no need to clutter up the workflow schemas with obvious things.
Hmmm, I'm wouldn't like to add implicit states. IMO the actual workflow
schema should resemble the configuration 1:1.
BTW, currently we have some implicit "mappings" from states,
workflow variables, and AC roles to GUI elements:
- the "live" display is hard-wired to the "is_live" variable
- the "visit" role has a special meaning in the live area
- IIRC "admin" has a special meaning as well
I don't like these either (but I guess there's no obvious,
straightforward solution to this problem). It boils down to
configuration vs. convention (ATM we use convention). IMO
convention needs good and prominent documentation, which we
don't have. Any ideas how to improve the situation? Or is
it fine with everybody? :)
i tried to look the previous discussion up in the archive, but i had no
luck. do you have a pointer?
Sorry, I can't find it anymore. Maybe my memory plays tricks on me :)
Anyway, it is certainly worth discussing it again.
this seems to be orthogonal to the actual workflow definition for a
doctype (i.e. how many stages etc.), and i don't see how this could
possibly have implications for the robustness of the repository.
It would mean that
- either you can't add documents without adding the workflow meta data
i see no problems with this requirement.
Neither have I.
you are always advocating to handle documents only via a well-defined api.
Yes, but this is a different point. The storage of the workflow history
is an internal detail. What matters is the semantics:
Should the creation of a document require a workflow transition?
IMO no - it should be up to the publication developer.
Should it be the default behaviour? That would be OK with me.
But this is just my current point of view, which is subject to change :)
where is the problem to
tell that api to always set a workflow state (it might even be called
"uninitialized", fwiw)
That would be another implicit state.
- or the system would have to handle both types (with and without
workflow meta data) in the same way.
sounds needlessly complicated.
I agree.
"event:create" is an event outside of whatever workflow you want to
define.
-1
IMO there shouldn't be "system" events which are not defined by the
workflow schema.
agreed in general (i.e. the system should not generate any more special
events after creation).
but since the creation of a document happens outside of a workflow but
does have implications for the workflow, it seems natural for me that
the document creator should set an initial workflow state. and to keep
this change from affecting the workflow.xml files, i'd suggest to have
an implicit, reserved state such as event:create that does not need
explicit state transitions, but implies the state "authoring".
But the states are configured in the workflow schema, the state
"authoring" is not mandatory ...
the reason i want this is to be able to display meta information on
the page ("last modified on <date> by <user>", or even "created by
<user>").
I'd rather handle this separated from the workflow, e.g. using
a "created:" meta data entry.
i could live with that, although doing it all via the workflow state
mechanism seems cleaner and more generic to me, even if it is more
intrusive.
I guess from a user's point of view you are right. From a developer's
point of view (thinking in state machines and keeping orthogonality
in mind) it is rather unclean, unless we find a generic way to express
the creation using the workflow schema.
-- Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
