| 
 I have written a manual for the EPF Composer, containing installation and 
configuration instructions, tutorials and a user manual.  It is a draft 
version, created from the help files and from the experience gathered while 
experimenting with the application.  I have tried to send it twice over the 
last ten days  but it does not seem to get through.   One point 
bothered me in the EPF Composer.  I would have found it more natural to 
have the Plug-ins split into two different types: Method Plug-ins and a Process 
Plug-ins.  It does not seem natural, once the subject area has been nicely 
decomposed into an hierarchical model with sub-areas having their own plug-ins 
and content packages, to have to have processes in one of these plug-ins access 
the method content in the other plug-ins.  The need for the processes to 
use the services of an outside service, i.e. a default configuration, to be able 
to access the content in the other plug-ins, makes it even more 
convoluted.  It would be more logical to separate out the processes code 
from the method content plug-in into a process plug-in type and move/copy the 
code from the configuration’s "Plug-in and Package" selection over to this new 
plug-in type so that the process by its very nature can access other method 
content plug-ins/packages.  The Configuration would then no longer have the 
hybrid functions of both providing access assistance to processes and 
configuration for publishing.  It would seem to be a cleaner separation: 
the method content plug-in provides static method content, the process plug-in 
provides processes and configuration provides configurations for 
publishing.   It seems that the authors of EPF Practices have made 
the same observation, since they have created a method plug-in with the name of 
"Process", accessing content packages in the "Practice" method content 
plug-in. 
  
Regards, 
  
Bjorn  
 |