super-state, scope or something else

[tom.baeyens]

hi guys,

i'm starting on the super-state. and i'm in doubt if we should keep the name super-state.

the only alternative name i can come up with is scope. i like that a bit better. but we also kept 'state' because it would be easier for people that know jbpm 3, even though 'wait' would have been better. so i think the same applies here and hence we should keep super-state

but i just wanted to check if there are other opinions out there.

[kukeltje]

why not use 'group' (yes, I know, it is the bpmn terminology so it might introduce expectations)? It is no real state, super in super-state was to me always confusing in relation to sub-process.

Regarding the wait, would'nt it be nice to introduce 'synonyms' so wait would also be possible?

[brittm]

I found "super-state" to be a poor term initially, as Ronald described.

Using 'scope' opens up a myriad of issues in my mind, since really everything has a scope. I would tend to start looking for how the same scope info was being applied in the data model to all levels of the process hierarchy.

"Group" would be confusing to me as well (but only because I already use that term in all my assignment handler configurations)--never the less, I think Ronald is right--and just because a particular language uses a term doesn't mean jpdl/jbpm has to, or should, avoid it. If it's the right word, then it's the right word.

In the end, I tend to go with naming things what they are, even if it's a little inconvenient initially--everyone seems to be happier in the long term. I would love to be able to use the terms 'wait' and 'group' for 'state' and 'super-state'.

[tom.baeyens]

interesting.

i'll use group instead of superstate.

depending on how this iteration goes, i might have a go at changing state to wait. i'll have to estimate how much work this is to change it first.