This content has been marked as final.
Show 4 replies
-
1. Re: Enforce transition names?
tom.baeyens May 6, 2009 7:25 AM (in response to heiko.braun)names should not be enforced.
users should only be forced to specify transition names if it has a meaning/purpose for the user.
even in case of multiple outgoing transitions, names should not be enforced. e.g. in case of a fork, we don't want to force process modellers to name all the outgoing transitions. -
2. Re: Enforce transition names?
heiko.braun May 6, 2009 7:28 AM (in response to heiko.braun)How do I signal when the transition doesn't have a name?
-
3. Re: Enforce transition names?
tom.baeyens May 6, 2009 7:49 AM (in response to heiko.braun)signal without parameter signalExecutionById(String executionId) or signalExecutionById(executionId, (String)null)
-
4. Re: Enforce transition names?
kukeltje May 6, 2009 8:01 AM (in response to heiko.braun)users should only be forced to specify transition names if it has a meaning/purpose for the user.
When is that? For me in almost any case. Certainly in decisions (at least without guarded transitions, but that is impossible in xsd's) but also in tasknodes, so for me it is better to enforce it always. Forks in my experience were limited to 4 legs so it is not a real problem. Besides that it is very easily enforced in an xsd.