[kukeltje]

I did not propose anything adittionally, because the original one (with Instances appended) compared to jusr Process was wat we were talking about. Sorry if that was not clear (although Tom and Ed got that).

With regard to the code snippets, These methods are in our case 'hidden' in a Process Access Object, so not used in many places. The fact that it is shorter (and yes, looks better) is not that big a deal. ProcessInstance is more specific, but if others disagree with this, I will certainly not make this a matter of life and death :-)

[thomas.diesler]

These methods are in our case 'hidden' in a Process Access Object

Many folks will use the API directly as documented by the CTS test cases and the documentation itself.

From your comments, and again I am grateful for those, I take it can stay as is.

[koen.aers]

"thomas" wrote:
From your comments, and again I am grateful for those, I take it can stay as is.

+1

Change is (sometimes) good, but it should not lead to confusion.

Cheers,
Koen

[kukeltje]

now I'm confused. What is stay as it is? ProcessInstance and ProcessDefinition or Process and ProcessDefinition? Which one do you vote for Koen?

[thomas.diesler]

This is as is

http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpm-spec/jbpm-spec-api/apidocs/org/jbpm/api/model/package-summary.html

[camunda]

My vote goes for "ProcessDefinition" and "ProcessInstance".

As other people mentioned, Process can mean both, depending on the persons speaking. This can load to confusion, and I think saying "ProcessInstance" is maybe more verbose, but at least totally clear.

By the way, this is indeed basically one of the first things we try to teach people in the trainings (even business people in our BPMN trainings), the difference between a process definition and instance...

Last remark: Same I would say for TaskDefinition & TaskInstance (when we come to this point)...

[tom.baeyens]

i consider jbpm 3 the 'as-is' and jbpm 4 as the 'to-be'

[thomas.diesler]

Thanks Bernd, more votes?

[heiko.braun]

I agree with Bernd.

[koen.aers]

ProcessDefinition + ProcessInstance is what I meant with 'as is'. So I agree with Bernd as well ;-)

[salaboy21]

I like Process and ProcessDefinition because I think that the only distintion to be made is the formal part of the process (ProcessDefinition) the other is always about the execution.

Also I see in the examples that there will be some method called createProcessDefinition(XML), i think is better keep the old parseProcessDefinition in this case is more clear to me that i use the APIs.

[kukeltje]

I'm with Koen, Bernd, Heiko and Tom ;-)

[thomas.diesler]

ok, I'll incorporate your comments