about processes and engines

tb: When a workflow system is not a workflow system

A nice and crisp blog post on the “workflow blog” :

Well Workflow or BPM systems by their nature can be reconfigured at the drop of a hat so in my friend’s case he could add a step D without ever having to touch a line of code.

I have to agree, and I feel guilty : somehow, with OpenWFE, a process definition is code (at least for my interlocutor in that forum thread).

The code, the process definition language is what the engine directly understands, but it’s rather high level, everybody understands :

    <participant ref="alice" />
    <participant ref="bob" />
rendered as sequence

I’m losing myself in my small blog post. I’d just like to say that a drawing is an explanation, a view.

When I was in the military academy, we were taught to draw our ‘intentions’ with simple drawings, but then [written] orders were a bit more detailed and they were using a subset of the language (french and german) whose definitions we had to learn by heart.
(now I’m tagging this post as ‘blahblah’).

The structure of the OpenWFE process definition language makes it easy to render it in different views, and even to manipulate it within such a view with a direct impact on the model (bi-directional).

Of course, the process definition language is like code… But.

Written by John Mettraux

May 15, 2006 at 10:32 pm

Posted in blahblah, bpms, openwfe, workflow

%d bloggers like this: