On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:19:44PM -0300, Patrick Dalla Bernardina wrote: > Does anybody know about implementations of workflow using jabber protocol?
I know alittle bit about sluice[1]. I have not been able to work on this project in a long while. It is used by MUSC. I want to redo it in python and use idavoll[2] to put a pubsub interface to it. But that is when I get some time. [1] http://www.itlab.musc.edu/sluice/ [2] http://idavoll.jabberstudio.org/2/ > > Richard Dobson wrote: > > >>You're right, but regardless of scaleability and efficiency, it's still > >>defining more or less the same thing which was already defined in > >>JEP-0070. > >>The title of JEP-0070 pretty much reads as exactly what JEP-0101 does. > >>It could have been co-authored or something to merge the two ideas so > >>that it would work either way. :-) > > > > > >It might have but I was working on JEP-0101 long before JEP-0070 > >actually came out, and I did submit it long before the date it > >actually says on it as it took a while and a couple of attempts to get > >through to Peter, ive got a feeling it might even have been before > >JEP-0070 came out that I started trying to submit it. > > > >>Actually, I'm not entirely convinced that JEP-0070 requires a Jabber > >>server to be embedded in the web server. The same protocol would work > >>with only a client embedded in the server, just like existing web sites > >>don't require an embedded email server to send email confirmations. > > > > > >Sure using the word "server" was probably the wrong term to use, but > >it does require some kind of jabber "component" or other to be tied > >into the webserver for it to work. > > > >>It's a little inefficient, yes. It's not so conceptually perfect, > >>because > >>it did require the user confirming the message, rather than having > >>anything > >>automated... but I do think the two could have been merged somehow. > > > > > >Maybe so but im not sure how as the author of the other spec seemed to > >want to go about it in an entirely different way which was not really > >compatible with how I needed it to work (I use a version of this spec > >in production and had been before either protocol came out), all I was > >doing was documenting a method I use that works very well. After > >JEP-0070 came out I considered implementing that instead but it > >wouldnt have worked very well in my situation for the reasons already > >outlined and since they do go about it in two fundamentally different > >ways I didnt see the problem at the time with releasing my spec too, I > >thought it might come in useful for someone. > > > >Richard > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >jdev mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev > > > _______________________________________________ > jdev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev > > _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
