Eclipse Community Forums: EPF » Activity Entry & Exit State.

Help

Home

Home » Archived » EPF » Activity Entry & Exit State.

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

Activity Entry & Exit State. [message #26541]

Fri, 12 January 2007 11:49

S.Saravanan

Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009

Member

Hi

In Current version of EPF , we have Activity Entry State & Exit State
shown when the WBS is created for either a Capability Pattern or a
Delivery Process. This is good. Now I have the follwoing Queries:

1) Why these two entries are manual entries and not allowed to select a
Outcomes, Tasks etc. This is more important when I use outcomes to define
the state of workproducts and when I need to select them as entry and exit
states.

2) For extended method elements the activity states are not allowed to
change, the same as in Dependency field too. These two parameters needs to
be allowed to over-ride, when we finally create the deployable delivery
process.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Activity Entry & Exit State. [message #26619 is a reply to message #26541]

Fri, 12 January 2007 13:51

Aitor Bediaga

Messages: 22
Registered: July 2009

Junior Member

Hi, I fully agree on that. But I have another comment; Are these
attributes described in the SPEM 2.0 specification (recently approved)??
Can we consider these attributes as an extension to SPEM 2.0?

Regards,

Aitor.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Activity Entry & Exit State. [message #26658 is a reply to message #26619]

Fri, 12 January 2007 23:03

Eclipse User

Originally posted by: phaumer.xxx.com

Hello.
Entry and Exit State are indeed currently represented only as string
attributes of the work product descriptor. Original plans included to
provide state-transition models for work products, which we had to cut and
reduce to these string attributes for time and resource reasons. We still
would like to add a more complete solution as specified in our SPEM2
submission, which provides links to complete state models. See the section
on Process Behavior in the spec for more details.

I also agree that a proper solution needs to allow to override the states
for dynamically linked patterns. Regard our current solutions as an
intermediate step towards a more complete one.

--

Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.

____________________________________________________________ __

PETER HAUMER
IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
____________________________________________________________ __
"Aitor Bediaga" <aitor.bediaga@esi.es> wrote in message
news:25fd751e98611e9881cd230389964d70$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Hi, I fully agree on that. But I have another comment; Are these
> attributes described in the SPEM 2.0 specification (recently approved)??
> Can we consider these attributes as an extension to SPEM 2.0?
>
> Regards,
>
> Aitor.
>

Report message to a moderator

Re: Activity Entry & Exit State. [message #574813 is a reply to message #26541]

Fri, 12 January 2007 13:51

Aitor Bediaga

Messages: 22
Registered: July 2009

Junior Member

Report message to a moderator

Re: Activity Entry & Exit State. [message #574874 is a reply to message #26619]

Fri, 12 January 2007 23:03

Peter Haumer

Messages: 228
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hello.
Entry and Exit State are indeed currently represented only as string
attributes of the work product descriptor. Original plans included to
provide state-transition models for work products, which we had to cut and
reduce to these string attributes for time and resource reasons. We still
would like to add a more complete solution as specified in our SPEM2
submission, which provides links to complete state models. See the section
on Process Behavior in the spec for more details.

I also agree that a proper solution needs to allow to override the states
for dynamically linked patterns. Regard our current solutions as an
intermediate step towards a more complete one.

--

Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.

____________________________________________________________ __

PETER HAUMER
IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
____________________________________________________________ __
"Aitor Bediaga" <aitor.bediaga@esi.es> wrote in message
news:25fd751e98611e9881cd230389964d70$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Hi, I fully agree on that. But I have another comment; Are these
> attributes described in the SPEM 2.0 specification (recently approved)??
> Can we consider these attributes as an extension to SPEM 2.0?
>
> Regards,
>
> Aitor.
>

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	is ther any Workflow engine in epf?
Next Topic:	XP content approved!!!

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

]

Current Time: Mon May 06 11:10:41 GMT 2024

.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Breadcrumbs

Sign up to our Newsletter