Topic: wftk -- Process definition: <alert>

wftk home ] [ process definition ] [ discussion ]
The <alert> tag is one place where adapters come into play. I should be able to write an alert adapter for any means of passing a message to another person or system. The ones I've enumerated already are plenty to illustrate that point. At any rate, I see the syntax of an alert as thus:
  <alert type="adapter name" to="target" config="stuff">
    <data name="value1"> ... </data>
The "type" parameter selects the adapter to be used to send the alert. The "to" parameter is adapter-specific and tells the adapter who the alert is for (an email address, for instance.) The "config" parameter is adapter-specific and is intended for telling the adapter how to format the message.

The contents of the alert consist of either <data> tags or arbitrary text, or maybe some mixture of both. I'm uncomfortable with a mixture. However, I do see a need for (OK, I have a couple of applications for) a formatted-value type of alert, and I also see the need for a nonformatted text. A plain email, for instance, can easily be tossed right into the content of the <alert> without the need to create a format specification.

This basic form of alert is enough to include alerts explicitly in workflows. It doesn't address the ability to place a watch on a workflow or workflows, though. For the time being, I'm going to omit that, and I'll come back to it after I have a prototype to work with. I don't really have a syntax I'm happy with yet. It may turn out that this is something best done from an administrative facility, and not as part of the process definition.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.