Thread: [Perl-workflow-devel] Typed conditions and perl config
Brought to you by:
jonasbn
Menu
▾
▴
perl-workflow-devel
|
From: Jim B. <cb...@bu...> - 2008-01-31 14:58:47
|
Hello all, I've checked in changes for the following: * conditions can now be typed, so if you have foo and a bar workflows, they can implement the condition AdminRequired with the same name, but different code for each. * I applied all the type changes to the perl config. Other notes: * I decided not to implement types for validators because I couldn't come up with a case where a validator would vary by type. I mean 'is_number' or 'is_email_address' should be the same regardless of a type. * The tests for perl configuration were very light, so most of my time was spent trying to add testing infrastructure for perl configs. * There was no testing of persister configs, so I added some. There is room for more. * I discovered that the persister configuration isn't consistent with the other methods. For example, in the xml, actions look like: <actions> <action> But persisters don't have that outer tag level. It would probably be good to add it at some point, but it would be tricky to do so and not break things for older installs. So if you get a chance, let me know if the new tests work on your systems. Even better, if you have real workflow systems in a dev area, let me know if anything is broken there. I'm going to continue testing on my systems. Jim -- Jim Brandt Administrative Computing Services University at Buffalo |
|
From: Jim B. <cb...@bu...> - 2008-03-17 12:19:43
|
Has anyone had a chance to try any of the new functionality? We've been running it in our dev and QA environments and so far everything appears to be working correctly. Any chance we could look at a plan to release to CPAN? Thanks, Jim Jim Brandt wrote: > Hello all, > > I've checked in changes for the following: > > * conditions can now be typed, so if you have foo and a bar workflows, > they can implement the condition AdminRequired with the same name, but > different code for each. > > * I applied all the type changes to the perl config. > > Other notes: > > * I decided not to implement types for validators because I couldn't > come up with a case where a validator would vary by type. I mean > 'is_number' or 'is_email_address' should be the same regardless of a type. > > * The tests for perl configuration were very light, so most of my time > was spent trying to add testing infrastructure for perl configs. > > * There was no testing of persister configs, so I added some. There is > room for more. > > * I discovered that the persister configuration isn't consistent with > the other methods. For example, in the xml, actions look like: > > <actions> > <action> > > But persisters don't have that outer tag level. It would probably be > good to add it at some point, but it would be tricky to do so and not > break things for older installs. > > So if you get a chance, let me know if the new tests work on your > systems. Even better, if you have real workflow systems in a dev area, > let me know if anything is broken there. I'm going to continue testing > on my systems. > > Jim > > > -- Jim Brandt Administrative Computing Services University at Buffalo |
|
From: Alexander K. <ak-...@cy...> - 2008-03-17 12:35:12
|
Hi Jim,
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 08:18:32AM -0400, Jim Brandt wrote:
> Has anyone had a chance to try any of the new functionality?
Sorry, still on my TODO list, but I hope I can find some time to
try it out soonish ...
Cheers,
Alex
--
Dipl.-Math. Alexander Klink | IT-Security Engineer
ak-...@cy... | working @ urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.11417
|
|
From: Jonas B. N. <jo...@gm...> - 2008-03-17 19:32:00
|
Hi Jim, And others, I can do a release - do you want it to be an alpha release, we have not used this earlier, but if you want to it is certainly possible. jonasbn On 17/03/2008, at 13.18, Jim Brandt wrote: > Has anyone had a chance to try any of the new functionality? > > We've been running it in our dev and QA environments and so far > everything appears to be working correctly. > > Any chance we could look at a plan to release to CPAN? > > Thanks, > Jim > > Jim Brandt wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I've checked in changes for the following: >> >> * conditions can now be typed, so if you have foo and a bar >> workflows, >> they can implement the condition AdminRequired with the same name, >> but >> different code for each. >> >> * I applied all the type changes to the perl config. >> >> Other notes: >> >> * I decided not to implement types for validators because I couldn't >> come up with a case where a validator would vary by type. I mean >> 'is_number' or 'is_email_address' should be the same regardless of >> a type. >> >> * The tests for perl configuration were very light, so most of my >> time >> was spent trying to add testing infrastructure for perl configs. >> >> * There was no testing of persister configs, so I added some. There >> is >> room for more. >> >> * I discovered that the persister configuration isn't consistent with >> the other methods. For example, in the xml, actions look like: >> >> <actions> >> <action> >> >> But persisters don't have that outer tag level. It would probably be >> good to add it at some point, but it would be tricky to do so and not >> break things for older installs. >> >> So if you get a chance, let me know if the new tests work on your >> systems. Even better, if you have real workflow systems in a dev >> area, >> let me know if anything is broken there. I'm going to continue >> testing >> on my systems. >> >> Jim >> >> >> > > -- > Jim Brandt > Administrative Computing Services > University at Buffalo > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Perl-workflow-devel mailing list > Per...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perl-workflow-devel |
|
From: Jim B. <cb...@bu...> - 2008-03-18 11:53:36
|
Jonas Brømsø Nielsen wrote: > Hi Jim, > > And others, I can do a release - do you want it to be an alpha release, > we have not used this earlier, but if you want to it is certainly possible. > We could do an alpha release. That would imply that some people would download and test that release and maybe give feedback before we promoted it. Any feeling on whether that would happen? I know I could try the alpha release and that would confirm that the CPAN version matches what I'm testing now (and I didn't sneak something into my test version). How long would we leave it in alpha? > jonasbn > > On 17/03/2008, at 13.18, Jim Brandt wrote: > >> Has anyone had a chance to try any of the new functionality? >> >> We've been running it in our dev and QA environments and so far >> everything appears to be working correctly. >> >> Any chance we could look at a plan to release to CPAN? >> >> Thanks, >> Jim >> >> Jim Brandt wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I've checked in changes for the following: >>> >>> * conditions can now be typed, so if you have foo and a bar workflows, >>> they can implement the condition AdminRequired with the same name, but >>> different code for each. >>> >>> * I applied all the type changes to the perl config. >>> >>> Other notes: >>> >>> * I decided not to implement types for validators because I couldn't >>> come up with a case where a validator would vary by type. I mean >>> 'is_number' or 'is_email_address' should be the same regardless of a >>> type. >>> >>> * The tests for perl configuration were very light, so most of my time >>> was spent trying to add testing infrastructure for perl configs. >>> >>> * There was no testing of persister configs, so I added some. There is >>> room for more. >>> >>> * I discovered that the persister configuration isn't consistent with >>> the other methods. For example, in the xml, actions look like: >>> >>> <actions> >>> <action> >>> >>> But persisters don't have that outer tag level. It would probably be >>> good to add it at some point, but it would be tricky to do so and not >>> break things for older installs. >>> >>> So if you get a chance, let me know if the new tests work on your >>> systems. Even better, if you have real workflow systems in a dev area, >>> let me know if anything is broken there. I'm going to continue testing >>> on my systems. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Jim Brandt >> Administrative Computing Services >> University at Buffalo >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Perl-workflow-devel mailing list >> Per...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perl-workflow-devel > -- Jim Brandt Administrative Computing Services University at Buffalo |
|
From: Jonas B. N. <jo...@gm...> - 2008-03-18 22:20:37
|
On 18/03/2008, at 12.53, Jim Brandt wrote: > > Jonas Brømsø Nielsen wrote: >> Hi Jim, >> And others, I can do a release - do you want it to be an alpha >> release, we have not used this earlier, but if you want to it is >> certainly possible. > > We could do an alpha release. That would imply that some people > would download and test that release and maybe give feedback before > we promoted it. Any feeling on whether that would happen? I know I > could try the alpha release and that would confirm that the CPAN > version matches what I'm testing now (and I didn't sneak something > into my test version). > > How long would we leave it in alpha? > I have never used alpha releases before, I have however considered it for Workflow for a long time, since a lot of people are using it in production. I say we try it out, see some testers feedback and then make an official release. Just to try out this new release strategy. jonasbn >> jonasbn >> On 17/03/2008, at 13.18, Jim Brandt wrote: >>> Has anyone had a chance to try any of the new functionality? >>> >>> We've been running it in our dev and QA environments and so far >>> everything appears to be working correctly. >>> >>> Any chance we could look at a plan to release to CPAN? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jim >>> >>> Jim Brandt wrote: >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I've checked in changes for the following: >>>> >>>> * conditions can now be typed, so if you have foo and a bar >>>> workflows, >>>> they can implement the condition AdminRequired with the same >>>> name, but >>>> different code for each. >>>> >>>> * I applied all the type changes to the perl config. >>>> >>>> Other notes: >>>> >>>> * I decided not to implement types for validators because I >>>> couldn't >>>> come up with a case where a validator would vary by type. I mean >>>> 'is_number' or 'is_email_address' should be the same regardless >>>> of a type. >>>> >>>> * The tests for perl configuration were very light, so most of my >>>> time >>>> was spent trying to add testing infrastructure for perl configs. >>>> >>>> * There was no testing of persister configs, so I added some. >>>> There is >>>> room for more. >>>> >>>> * I discovered that the persister configuration isn't consistent >>>> with >>>> the other methods. For example, in the xml, actions look like: >>>> >>>> <actions> >>>> <action> >>>> >>>> But persisters don't have that outer tag level. It would probably >>>> be >>>> good to add it at some point, but it would be tricky to do so and >>>> not >>>> break things for older installs. >>>> >>>> So if you get a chance, let me know if the new tests work on your >>>> systems. Even better, if you have real workflow systems in a dev >>>> area, >>>> let me know if anything is broken there. I'm going to continue >>>> testing >>>> on my systems. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jim Brandt >>> Administrative Computing Services >>> University at Buffalo >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >>> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Perl-workflow-devel mailing list >>> Per...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perl-workflow-devel > > -- > Jim Brandt > Administrative Computing Services > University at Buffalo > |
|
From: Jim B. <cb...@bu...> - 2008-03-19 12:17:13
|
Jonas Brømsø Nielsen wrote: > > I have never used alpha releases before, I have however considered it > for Workflow for a long time, since a lot of people are using it in > production. > > I say we try it out, see some testers feedback and then make an official > release. Just to try out this new release strategy. > Sounds good to me. Jim -- Jim Brandt Administrative Computing Services University at Buffalo |
|
From: Jim B. <cb...@bu...> - 2008-03-25 14:29:12
|
Any thoughts on when you might be able to work on the alpha release? Not nagging, just wondering. :) Thanks, Jim Jim Brandt wrote: > Jonas Brømsø Nielsen wrote: > >> I have never used alpha releases before, I have however considered it >> for Workflow for a long time, since a lot of people are using it in >> production. >> >> I say we try it out, see some testers feedback and then make an official >> release. Just to try out this new release strategy. >> > > Sounds good to me. > > Jim > -- Jim Brandt Administrative Computing Services University at Buffalo |
|
From: Jonas B. N. <jo...@gm...> - 2008-03-25 20:48:45
|
Hi Jim, We (my family) are currently moving apartments, so I do not have a lot time currently. I will see if I can get the alpha release at the begining of next week the latest. jonasbn On 25/03/2008, at 15.28, Jim Brandt wrote: > Any thoughts on when you might be able to work on the alpha release? > > Not nagging, just wondering. :) > > Thanks, > Jim > > > Jim Brandt wrote: >> Jonas Brømsø Nielsen wrote: >>> I have never used alpha releases before, I have however considered >>> it for Workflow for a long time, since a lot of people are using >>> it in production. >>> >>> I say we try it out, see some testers feedback and then make an >>> official release. Just to try out this new release strategy. >>> >> Sounds good to me. >> Jim > > -- > Jim Brandt > Administrative Computing Services > University at Buffalo > |
|
From: Jim B. <cb...@bu...> - 2008-03-26 12:01:06
|
Jonas Brømsø Nielsen wrote: > Hi Jim, > > We (my family) are currently moving apartments, so I do not have a lot > time currently. I will see if I can get the alpha release at the > begining of next week the latest. > Sounds good. Good luck with the move. :) Jim -- Jim Brandt Administrative Computing Services University at Buffalo |
|
From: Jonas B. N. <jo...@gm...> - 2008-04-06 07:49:30
|
Hello All, I am releasing 0.32_1 now, I have attempted to briefly describe everything that has happened in Changes, but I have not really had time to pay attention to the commit log :-/ 0.32_1 Sun Apr 6 09:02:42 CEST 2008 (update not required) - This is an alpha release introducing typed condition, implemented by Jim Brandt, we are very interested in feedback on this release, so please consider joining the mailing list or send feedback to jo...@cp... directly. - Typed conditions makes it possible for different workflows to hold unique methods for workflow steps even with names coliding. Example workflow foo and bar can have a condition baz, but baz are two different implementations in foo and bar respectively Updated: t/cached_conditions.t t/factory.t t/state.t t/TestUtil.t t/condition.t t/workflow_type.t t/config.t t/workflow.t Workflow Workflow::Factory Workflow::Config Workflow::Config::XML Workflow::Config::Perl Workflow::Action Workflow::State Workflow::Condition Workflow::Persister::DBI Workflow::History Workflow::Persister::SPOPS Introduced t/state_perl.t t/TestApp/Action/TicketCreateType.pm t/TestApp/Condition/HasUserType.pm t/workflow_action_type.perl t/workflow_action_type.xml t/workflow_condition_type.perl t/workflow_condition_type.xml t/workflow_persister.perl t/workflow_persister.xml t/workflow_type.perl t/workflow_type.xml - This release also holds new tests of persister configs, there is however always room for more - time_zone parameter can now be passer around for use by the Workflow DateTime objects internally jonasbn On 31/01/2008, at 15.58, Jim Brandt wrote: > Hello all, > > I've checked in changes for the following: > > * conditions can now be typed, so if you have foo and a bar workflows, > they can implement the condition AdminRequired with the same name, but > different code for each. > > * I applied all the type changes to the perl config. > > Other notes: > > * I decided not to implement types for validators because I couldn't > come up with a case where a validator would vary by type. I mean > 'is_number' or 'is_email_address' should be the same regardless of a > type. > > * The tests for perl configuration were very light, so most of my time > was spent trying to add testing infrastructure for perl configs. > > * There was no testing of persister configs, so I added some. There is > room for more. > > * I discovered that the persister configuration isn't consistent with > the other methods. For example, in the xml, actions look like: > > <actions> > <action> > > But persisters don't have that outer tag level. It would probably be > good to add it at some point, but it would be tricky to do so and not > break things for older installs. > > So if you get a chance, let me know if the new tests work on your > systems. Even better, if you have real workflow systems in a dev area, > let me know if anything is broken there. I'm going to continue testing > on my systems. > > Jim > > > > -- > Jim Brandt > Administrative Computing Services > University at Buffalo > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Perl-workflow-devel mailing list > Per...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perl-workflow-devel |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X