I agree. I think the conceptual work done (and documented here:
http://www.workflowpatterns.com) helps make this a strong framework.
As I've been working with the author to understand the implementation, my
confidence in the library grows. I think the biggest missing in it is the
documentation of
Ahem... It's Spiff, not Spliff, Sandy :-)
On 4/6/12 3:47 PM, "Sandy Walsh" wrote:
>From what I've seen Spliff doesn't specify ... the containing application
>has to deal with persistence.
>
>-S
>
>
>From: Yun Mao [yun...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 0
Read my latest notes and let me know if that helps:
http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration/WorkflowEngines/SpiffWorkflow
Two things to consider:
- you can consist the workflow definition (a.k.a. The Spec) - there are no
states in the definition
- you can persist the 'running' workflow (states
>From what I've seen Spliff doesn't specify ... the containing application has
>to deal with persistence.
-S
From: Yun Mao [yun...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 5:38 PM
To: Ziad Sawalha
Cc: Sriram Subramanian; Dugger, Donald D; Sandy Walsh;
no
Hi Ziad,
thanks for the great work. Do we know how the states are persisted in
Spiff? Thanks,
Yun
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ziad Sawalha wrote:
> Here's a link to my analysis so far:
> http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration/WorkflowEngines/SpiffWorkflow
>
> It looks good, but I won't
That's great Ziad ... nice work!
Having written one of these libraries before I know the challenges are mostly
conceptual, but not terribly technical (fortunately).
Generally the separation between WorkflowSpec and Workflow or TaskSpec and Task
is the same as Class and Instance. You define the
Here's a link to my analysis so far:
http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration/WorkflowEngines/SpiffWorkflow
It looks good, but I won't pass a final verdict until I have completed a
working project in it. I have one in progress and will let ya know when
it's done.
Z
On 4/3/12 4:56 PM, "Ziad Sa
7 matches
Mail list logo
