Hello,
Htod> One could argue that taking a case from onprocess to Htod> another is like setting it at the very beginning of the Htod> newprocess.
but keeping the history with a hint to the old process.
And let's think a bit further, we might make a semiautomatic transfer (user assigns stages between old an new process). This could make it possible to get obsolete processes out of the system.
Cheers,
Herbert mailto:herbertkoenig@gmx.net
Hi Herbert,
Am 27.09.2006 um 21:09 schrieb Herbert König:
Hello,
Htod> One could argue that taking a case from onprocess to Htod> another is like setting it at the very beginning of the Htod> newprocess.
but keeping the history with a hint to the old process.
I don't think so, because I only think for input errors of humans. To keep a history of this I belive has very small value. And it would be really the question if such process switching should be possible as a normal use case.... If you have an example for a case where such would make sense :-).............
And let's think a bit further, we might make a semiautomatic transfer (user assigns stages between old an new process). This could make it possible to get obsolete processes out of the system.
You think for an translation of processes ? Or more in the direction of evolution of processes ? But from my experience, it could be deadly complicated if all could be changed. So from this I see these different things we must look in gjallar:
- input errors which may have no history - evolution of things which have a small transition and history - create things from building blocks and no history
Greetings
Hans
BTW Herbert, do you have tried to send a big file to the list ? I got a bomb of many notifies about it...;-)
Cheers,
Herbert mailto:herbertkoenig@gmx.net
Setools mailing list Setools@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/setools
Hello Hans,
HNB> I don't think so, because I only think for input errors of humans. To HNB> keep a history of this I belive has very small value. And it would be HNB> really the question if such process switching should be possible as a HNB> normal use case.... If you have an example for a case where such HNB> would make sense :-).............
I think of ill defined processes which grow over time. My custumers are all small companies and even where they believe they have well defined processes, I think they'll find out their processes are not well defined.
So I guess if I would introduce Gjallar to any of them the normal case would be that every more complex process will change over time.
And let's think a bit further, we might make a semiautomatic transfer (user assigns stages between old an new process). This could make it possible to get obsolete processes out of the system.
HNB> You think for an translation of processes ? Or more in the direction HNB> of evolution of processes ? But from my experience, it could be
evolution is one aspect, insight that the description (=Gjallar process) doesn't match the real process is the other.
HNB> deadly complicated if all could be changed. So from this I see these HNB> different things we must look in gjallar:
I have only looked into very few methods but having a list of obsolete processes for the old versions and a case carrying a list of processes .... I like to discuss the value of a feature before discussing its costs.
HNB> - input errors which may have no history
that would be exchanging the process of a case while it its in the Inbox. HNB> - evolution of things which have a small transition and history
Yes, except that people might migrate old cases and then things get a bigger history quickly.
HNB> - create things from building blocks and no history
That's interesting. I could learn how to build blocks with a flexible number of inputs and outputs (= transitions?) and a *usable* interface for that.
HNB> BTW Herbert, do you have tried to send a big file to the list ? I got HNB> a bomb of many notifies about it...;-)
I only tried once, and actually I only wanted to send it to Göran. But I only sent once, so the bombing came from elsewhere. (Maybe gmx?)
Actually I wait for Gjallar for Gjallar :-)) so that the link goes here and the report goes to Gjallar.
Cheers,
Herbert mailto:herbertkoenig@gmx.net
Hi Hans!
"HNBeck@t-online.de" HNBeck@t-online.de wrote:
Hi G=F6ran, <br /><br />would it be possible to assign a already stored case to a different process ? No, that be should not be a normal operation, but for correcting humen errors it would be useful.
Yes, we intend to add that mechanism. Then it depends on how "smart" it should be. For example, one could say that yes - you can move the case to another process in which it inevitable ends up in the start stage (as you mention) AND also warn the user about entered fields or forms that do not have counterparts in that Process (and will thus be lost or in some other way needs to be transformed).
regards, Göran
setools@lists.squeakfoundation.org