+1 to "Faces Flow"
Bernd
Am 15.03.2012 17:59, schrieb Andy Bosch:
>
> I think "task flow" is a bit dangerous. I mean, JSF is an
> _UI_ framework, business logic should be implemented somewhere else.
> And having "tasks" inside JSF could inidcate we are aiming to do
> complex service logic inside JSF.
>
> I prefer the term "Faces Flow", but "flowlet" is fine as well.
>
> Andy B.
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Edward Burns [mailto:edward.burns_at_oracle.com]
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. März 2012 17:13
>> An: jsr344-experts_at_javaserverfaces-spec-public.java.net
>> Betreff: [jsr344-experts] [730-TaskFlows] NAMING
>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:15:52 -0600, David Schneider
>> <david.schneider_at_oracle.com> said:
>>
>> DS> The term "task flow" is currently used in ADF. When we first
>> started
>> DS> out with ADF the concept was called a "process" but we needed to
>> change
>> DS> it due to confusion with BPEL processes. We switched to the term
>> "task
>> DS> flow" but I never thought that was all that great either, we just
>> DS> couldn't think of anything better :-) . The same is true of the term
>> DS> "activity".
>>
>> I'm going to split this out to a separate thread. But personally I find
>> the names in the initial proposal quite good enough.
>>
>> WK> So are suggestion welcome by the EG or has it become familiar at
>> WK> least with ADF users by now?
>>
>> DS> I don't know about the other people in the EG but I'm open to new
>> DS> names. Existing ADF users are familiar with the term "task flow"
>> but I
>> DS> don't think we (the EG) should feel bound to that name. My hope is
>> DS> whatever we standardize will be based on the best of all the
>> existing
>> DS> flow concepts, not just ADF, plus anything useful we find we need to
>> DS> add. Having a new name is probably a good way to indicate to users
>> that
>> DS> what ends up in JavaEE maybe similar to something they've seen
>> before
>> DS> but not 100% identical. I suspect having the JavaEE flow concept
>> called
>> DS> something other than a "task flow" will make my ADF life easier down
>> the
>> DS> road :-) .
>>
>> DS> Some random thoughts:
>>
>> DS> - Faces Flow
>>
>> FWIW, this is the name I used in the JSF 2.2 Early Draft Review, but I
>> changed it back to Task Flow because I think it makes more sense.
>>
>> DS> - Enterprise Flow
>> DS> - Application Flow
>> DS> - Page Flow (although not all the nodes are pages)
>>
>> WK> - Content Flow
>> WK> Just playing with word, or trying to find something more generic
>> than
>> WK> "Page".
>>
>> But we need to capture that flows are not just views, they are all the
>> sub-classes of Flow Node in this diagram.
>>
>> http://javaserverfaces-spec-
>> public.java.net/proposals/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-730/flow-
>> classes.gif
>>
>> AS> At the moment, unless you are using a 3rd party/custom solution, all
>> of
>> AS> your flows are crammed into single massive faces-config.xml with no
>> AS> reuse/modularilty. We want a name for a small/lighweight, reusable
>> AS> application fragment that contains bits of these navigation flows.
>>
>> AS> How about: a "flowlet".
>>
>> AS> I like the the parallel with "Facelets".
>>
>> AS> 2.0 big spec feature: Facelets
>> AS> 2.2 big spec feature: Flowlets!
>>
>> AS> I'll probably hate it by tomorrow, but figured it was worth a shot.
>>
>> I don't like it today.
>>
>> I still don't see a compelling reason to leave the names in the original
>> proposal. Can someone who hasn't commented already speak up?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> --
>> | edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
>> | homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
>