On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Gonzalo<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We 've modified a little "ar_participant" in order to give it
> authorization capabilities. Now, only a user or a group is able to
> update/proceed the workitem.
>
> Now we can do this on a workflow:
>
> class Test < OpenWFE::ProcessDefinition
> sequence do
>
> participant :ref => "alpha",
> :assigned_to => "john"
>
> participant :ref => "alpha"
> :owner_role => "developer"
>
> end
> end
Hello Gonzalo,
it looks decent.
There are two points (in time) where the engine communicate with the
participant. At registration (configuration) and when handing
workitems (runtime).
Should this extra information be handed at runtime or at configuration
? It depends on the frequency of change. Configuration stuff is
supposed to change with a lower frequency than runtime stuff.
So a balance between participant registration / process definition has
to found. I tend to favour, terse process definitions, but sometimes,
it's a lost cause :(
> There's one thing that we don't like:
>
> @assigned_to = RuoteRest::ProcessInstance.find_by_wfid
> (workitem.flow_expression_id.workflow_instance_id).user.login
>
> ProcessInstance class is accessed from the RuoteRest module, so we're
> mixing REST with ruote engine. Sounds to me like a misconception from
> our side - Maybe, ProcessInstance should be at engine level, but it
> also has something to do with users, which are at REST level ('lib/
> models/auth.rb')
I don't know how to help you on that one. Make it work then make it better.
Best regards,
--
John Mettraux - http://jmettraux.wordpress.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
you received this message because you are subscribed to the "ruote users" group.
to post : send email to [email protected]
to unsubscribe : send email to [email protected]
more options : http://groups.google.com/group/openwferu-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
