On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0400, Cappelaere Patrice wrote: > > I did read the example... in the case of ruote_fluo...If you take that > definition and put it in a file,,, I pretty much described what happens, I > thought.
Interesting, for me, when I put it into ruote-fluo, I get : http://ruote.s3.amazonaws.com/alpha_bravo.png Oh wait, let me guess, you put "engine.launch(pdef)" part with it too ? > The point was to show that you may want to expose more of what is happening > at the workflow level rather than hide it in a participant (which would not > be obvious to the casual reader). This is why you want to use workflows > after all. What is not obvious about sequence do calculate_next_trajectory emit_trajectory end ? Do you remember that ruote is totally asynchronous ? Why do you want to slap around synchronous calculations right in the middle of a process definition ? Programming is about building "higher" abstraction levels. > Why couldn't I use a workflow to design an algorithm and the many processing > steps? > This would be really cool.... soooo close!. Lean the tool, use participants. 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
