In various WF projects I've seen, the developer created a new activity class and put the appropriate methods there. However the starter kit (web form workflow approvals website) appears to associate activities with UI pages (eg. enterapprovalrequest, enterresolutiontask,
managerapprovaltask) and all activities are channeled through just one useractivity class.
rather than write methods in that one class for every possible activity, and to stay with the design template, we would rather write a separate class for each kind of activity and the useractivity instance would simply take it's parameters and call the appropriate
class.
so the author intended that we not add more activities, just more classes...is this correct? it's ok later on if we went with a workflow designer? ...i'm assuming it can keep straight multiple instances of the same activity.
now that i think about it, this approach is inherently less intuitive were workflow designers are deployed in the UI. if there were a library of activities the user were choosing from, there is just one, and though it's in the starter kit, I'm thinking
this is not what Microsoft had in mind for WF apps.
add'l training would be needed to show that all activities are the same until the appropriate parameters are assigned. BUT the user would have needed to be trained on parameters anyway.
socal.pengui...
None
0 Points
4 Posts
WF Approval Template: Architecture?
Oct 14, 2009 02:39 PM|socal.penguin|LINK
In various WF projects I've seen, the developer created a new activity class and put the appropriate methods there. However the starter kit (web form workflow approvals website) appears to associate activities with UI pages (eg. enterapprovalrequest, enterresolutiontask, managerapprovaltask) and all activities are channeled through just one useractivity class.
rather than write methods in that one class for every possible activity, and to stay with the design template, we would rather write a separate class for each kind of activity and the useractivity instance would simply take it's parameters and call the appropriate class.
so the author intended that we not add more activities, just more classes...is this correct? it's ok later on if we went with a workflow designer? ...i'm assuming it can keep straight multiple instances of the same activity.
any comments would be appreciated.
socal.pengui...
None
0 Points
4 Posts
Re: WF Approval Template: Architecture?
Oct 15, 2009 01:36 PM|socal.penguin|LINK
now that i think about it, this approach is inherently less intuitive were workflow designers are deployed in the UI. if there were a library of activities the user were choosing from, there is just one, and though it's in the starter kit, I'm thinking this is not what Microsoft had in mind for WF apps.
add'l training would be needed to show that all activities are the same until the appropriate parameters are assigned. BUT the user would have needed to be trained on parameters anyway.