Jose, I'm pleased you agree and don't.
Let me tackle the don't: I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be a user interface/admin tool, and there is no reason why that can't remain. However, the current approach of trying to put workflow into a database isn't working because functionality that was available in the 1970s (according to the Wiki page, but 1990 is a more reasonble guess) proves difficult/impossible to implement in AR System. Storing as a script will allow merges in seconds, side by side easy to read diff between two sets of workflow, multiple branches and branches on branches, access over ssh, a pretty web interface and integration to bug tracking systems (JIRA), test driven development - the list goes on. All of which is available for free or with little effort if workflow is stored as scripts, not stored into a database table. The problem with the current model touches so many areas of AR System: When Mid Tier isn't required to store workflow in a memory cache and can simply point the browser at scripts, the "pre-cache" functionality will largely disappear and the product will become vastly less memory hungry and much quicker. Perhaps I should ask, can anyone think of a disadvantage with taking workflow from the schema and into scripts? John _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
