Workflow Management Facility Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Workflow Management Facility — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: WfMF
  • Issues Count: 22
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
WFMF12-22 When is the exception InvalidNames raised? WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-13 WfEventAudit into Value-type Interface? WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-19 Completion of the related objects WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Closed; No Change closed
WFMF12-16 Propagation of state change WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-18 Operation name mismatch WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-20 When WfActivity are created and activated WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-15 meanings of "max_number" WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-21 Is exception InvalidData used for invalid set access? WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-17 Readonly attributes have set operations WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-14 Workflow RTF - compliance points WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-9 Activity realizations WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-12 Naming convention and operation names and types WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-7 (bom/98-06-07) using #ifdefs was invalid WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-11 Figure 1-3, Workflow Reference Model, WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-6 The resource protocol needs clarification WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-4 Section 2 needs an overview WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-3 Section 2.5 WfActivity WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-10 Workflow issues raised from the AB at the Helsinki Meeting WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-8 The create_process operation on WfProcessMgr WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-5 Section 2.8 WfEventAudit WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-2 Section 2.4 WfProcess WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed
WFMF12-1 Section 1.5.5 describes chained processes as supported WfMF 1.1 WfMF 1.2 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

When is the exception InvalidNames raised?

  • Key: WFMF12-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2109
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue 8: When is the exception InvalidNames raised?
    Section 2.15.2
    QueryExceptions : exception InvalidNames{}.
    Query: When is this exception raised? Is it only when invalid name value
    list is provided as input for a set_name_in_expression operation of
    BaseIterator?

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

WfEventAudit into Value-type Interface?

  • Key: WFMF12-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2098
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: For consideration by the Workflow RTF:

    We should discuss whether it makes sense to make WfEventAudit into a
    "value-type" interface as defined by the ObjectsByValue specification.
    EventAudits can only be accessed via their "sources" (WfExecutionObject) and
    could be considered to be part of the state of these entities.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Dulicate of issue 2041 and therefore closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Completion of the related objects

  • Key: WFMF12-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2106
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue 5: Completion of the related objects
    Section 2.4.3 States
    Query 1: In the table describing "how_closed" state set it is stated that "
    it is assumed that all execution objects associated with that execution
    object are completed when it enters this state". Is the assumption made
    because there is some forced completion of execution objects related to the
    execution object that enters the closed state?
    Query 2: If the event occurs in situation that is assumed, then what needs
    to be done? Is an exception raised?

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    rejected and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Propagation of state change

  • Key: WFMF12-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2103
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue 2: Propagation of state change
    Section 2.4
    Query: Is the propagation of state change of a WfProcess object down to
    WfActivity objects or subprocesses is implementation and process definition
    dependent?

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Operation name mismatch

  • Key: WFMF12-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2105
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue 4: Operation name mismatch
    Section 2.4.2 Attributes
    Query: In context part of this section there is a set_context() operation.
    In IDL it is given as set_process_context(). Which one is correct?
    Section 2.5.2 Attributes
    Query: In "Process signature information" part of this section on page 2-44
    operations get_context_signature() and get_result_signature() are not in
    IDL. Are they replaced by context_signature() and result_signature() which
    are respectively present in IDL. Also the return values are different from
    those in IDL.
    Section 2.6 WfProcess
    Query: In para 4 of "Process monitoring and control" part, Is get_result()
    operation used instead of result() operation of WfProcess?
    Section 2.7 WfActivity
    Query: In para 1 of "Activity context and result" part, Is set_context used
    instead of set_process_context?
    Section 2.7.3
    Relationships: process
    Query: Should it be "container" instead of "process"?
    Section 2.8.3
    States: assignment_stateType assignment_status ( )
    Query: Following correction is required in Spec and Errata, when it is
    compared to consolidated IDL.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

When WfActivity are created and activated

  • Key: WFMF12-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2107
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue 6: When WfActivity are created and activated
    Section 2.7
    Activity states:
    Query: Implementation of WfM facility or WfProcess has to decide when to
    create a WfActivity and when to activate WfActivity. Does this depend on
    process definition?

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    rejected/closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

meanings of "max_number"

  • Key: WFMF12-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2102
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue 1: meanings of "max_number"
    Section 2.3.2
    Relationships: WfProcessSequence get_sequence_performer (in long
    max_number)
    Query: Does this mean that it will return a list of "max_number" number of
    WfProcess objects starting from zero position?
    Section 2.7.3 and 2.9.3
    Relationships: WfAssignmentSequence get_sequence_work_item( in long
    max_number )
    Query: Does this mean that it will return a list of "max_number" of
    WfAssignment objects starting from zero position in the list?

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, issue closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Is exception InvalidData used for invalid set access?

  • Key: WFMF12-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2108
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue 7: Is exception InvalidData used for invalid set access?
    Section 2.7.2 Attributes
    Query: A ResultNotAvailable exception is raised when you have no access to
    the result of an activity. There is no corresponding exception raised when
    you try to set the result of such an activity. Is the exception InvalidData
    meant for this purpose or for the purpose as stated in the specification?

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Readonly attributes have set operations

  • Key: WFMF12-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2104
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue 3: Readonly attributes have set operations
    Section 2.4.2 Attributes
    Query: In the table in this section it is stated that key attribute is
    readonly but in the IDL there is a set_key() operation. Set_key () is not
    explained in this section.
    Section 2.5.2 Attributes
    Query 1: name attribute is specified as readonly. In IDL there is a
    set_name() operation.
    Query 2: description attribute is specified as readonly. In IDL there is a
    set_description() operation.
    Query 3: category attribute is specified as readonly. In IDL there is a
    set_category() operation.
    Query 4: version attribute is specified as readonly. In IDL there is a
    set_version() operation.
    Are all the above operations used only in initialization? Do they throw
    BaseException if the above operations are requested after initialization?

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Workflow RTF - compliance points

  • Key: WFMF12-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2099
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 3.2 (Proposed Compliance Points) should be refined by introducing a
    compliance level for WfM Facility implementations that support WfProcessMgr,
    WfProcess, WfActivity only.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Activity realizations

  • Key: WFMF12-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2075
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In section 2.7 WfActivity in the sub-section called Activity realizations,
    there is a discussion about Activities re-using a WfProcess.

    This sections is very unclear to me. It appears to imply that a WfProcess
    could be used to realize more than one WfActivity, but given that those 2
    WfActivities could be executing in parallel and the context data is an
    attribute of the Process (via inheritance from WfExecutionObject) this would
    not seem possible.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify that a WfProcess cannot be reused this way.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Naming convention and operation names and types

  • Key: WFMF12-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2087
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The naming convention for operations is inconsistent and the attribute
    and operation names and types in Figure 2-1 do not match the
    specifications.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Thu, 15 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, see above, issue closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

(bom/98-06-07) using #ifdefs was invalid

  • Key: WFMF12-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2066
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: WfRequester, WfProcessManager, WfResource, WfEventAudit, WfAssignment and
    WfExecutionObject all inherit from WfBase::BaseBusinessObject;
    BaseBusinessObject inherits from CosTransactions::TransactionalObject,
    CosObjectIdentity::IdentifiableObject, CosNotifyComm::StructuredPushSupplier
    and CosLifeCycle::LifeCycleObject.

    We had originally planned to provide a "lightweight" version of the
    BaseBusinessObject and a Conformance Level hat allows for implementations of
    the WfM Facility without dependencies on the CosServices. The solution proposed
    in the original submission (bom/98-06-07) using #ifdefs was invalid and was
    temporarily fixed in the Errata (bom/98-07-15) by dropping the simple version.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Thu, 8 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Figure 1-3, Workflow Reference Model,

  • Key: WFMF12-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2085
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Figure 1-3, Workflow Reference Model, does not provide a reasonable
    representation of the resource manager concept which is a generalization
    of the work list concept. The associated text needs work also.

    This overview material, as it is currently positioned in the proposal,
    would probably not be part of the published specification since it is
    under design rationale, which appears to be a justification for the
    submission rather than the specification per se. It should be revised
    to be an appropriate overview included in the final specification. Some
    of the other material in Section 1 should also be adapted and included.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Thu, 15 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of issue 2040 and therefore closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

The resource protocol needs clarification

  • Key: WFMF12-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2042
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The resource protocol needs clarification. There should be no
    relationship with a resource until there is an assignment. A potential
    assignment could be presented to a large pool of potential resources, or
    could be held by a resource manager until an assignment is determined.
    Also, the diagram, Figure 2-2, does not show the release operation on
    resource, but instead shows the resource sending a complete message to
    the activity (backward). It also shows the resource sending an accept
    message to the activity which does not appear to be defined for
    activity.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 2 needs an overview

  • Key: WFMF12-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2040
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 2 needs an overview. There should be discussion of how a
    workflow process works, i.e., how the different elements come into play,
    including (1) how a process gets initiated, (2) the invokation of a
    sub-process and (3) the use of a sub-process to obtain a resource
    assignment. We know this stuff, but others do not and we won"t always
    be around to explain it. The diagram in Section 2.12 helps, but it is
    buried in the back and needs a lot more explanation.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 2.5 WfActivity

  • Key: WFMF12-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2039
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 2.5 WfActivity. Activities need some attribute for defining
    their order. I should be able to access activities chronologically in a
    straightforward manner. Since there may be parallel threads within a
    process, this cannot be a simple activity sequence number. One approach
    would be to define a sequence number assigned by the process when each
    activity is initiated to define the chronology. This gives me the
    order, but still does not tell me which activity(s) completed for a
    particular activity to start (dependencies). I could live with the
    second issue (dependencies) left to the implementation and not exposed
    at this time (although I think this is needed to be able to create a
    meaningful display). I think the first (a sequence) is essential.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Workflow issues raised from the AB at the Helsinki Meeting

  • Key: WFMF12-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2076
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issues raised from AB meeting in Helsinki, mostly editorial

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace WfProcessMgr by the WfProcess that is being created as a source of the event.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

The create_process operation on WfProcessMgr

  • Key: WFMF12-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2067
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The create_process operation on WfProcessMgr (section 2.5.5) takes a
    WfRequester as input. I would like to give the ProcessManager a chance to
    reject a WfRequester by reasing an InvalidRequester exception. As a result, the
    process would not signal events back to a Reqester; the requesting application
    might decide not to use the created WfProcess.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Fri, 9 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add an exception.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 2.8 WfEventAudit

  • Key: WFMF12-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2041
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 2.8 WfEventAudit. The source association is presumably an
    object reference to an activity or process. This may be okay in the
    active environment, but I am concerned that this means all the process
    and activity instances must be preserved as long as the events are
    preserved. Is that reasonable?

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 2.4 WfProcess

  • Key: WFMF12-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2038
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 2.4 WfProcess. In most cases, when I am interested in an
    active process, I am interested in the particular activity(s) that are
    currently active, as opposed to those that are completed. Consequently,
    I would provide two relationships to Activities: those that are active
    and those that are completed. Without that, particularly with the last
    relationship/iterator design I saw, there must be a considerable
    exchange to get an iterator and then select the activities I am actually
    interested in from what might be a very large set of completed
    activities.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 1.5.5 describes chained processes as supported

  • Key: WFMF12-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2037
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 1.5.5 describes chained processes as supported. This seems to
    me to be misleading, at least without further explanation. I believe
    this is essentially enabled by (1) the fact that the invoking workflow
    is not required to block until the invoked workflow completes and (2)
    the fact that the invoking activity need not be the designated requester
    for purposes of receiving completion or other events.

  • Reported: WfMF 1.1 — Tue, 6 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — WfMF 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    issue resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT