What do you would like to see in BOS 6.0? (Page 1 of 2)

Hi ,
I think Bonita is easy to use enough for processes and connectors , I'd like if there was some userxp customization features
Also , maybe add some options to edit the source code of forms ( = faster / easier form edition for web developers as using the mouse is a time loss for development )

I think you won't have to wait for the 6.0 to see improvements on this topics

After reading this topic : http://www.bonitasoft.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=3617 I wonder if it would make sense to develop a "Bonita taglib" in order to easier integrate JSP and BOS?
Just my two cents...

Benoit

Hi ,
Good idea ,
I'd also like it if it was more simple to export the application : an option to export just the .war + the .bar in a folder instead of a zip file with the libraries .

Nice , exactly what i thought !

Hi,

It would be nice to have forms with AJAX-like capabilities and editable dynamic tables (like the static ones but “add”, “delete” and “modify” buttons at row level.

Best regards.

Hi,

Some other things I think would be interesting are:

-    A tabbed interface for User Experience. For instance, it would be interesting to have such things as different views for the workload (such as a “process view”, a “task type view”, a “document view” and the like. It would be also interesting to have triggers between tabs (for instance, if you select on one tabbed screen the process you are looking for, then you will have a case information form on another.

-    Some kind of “case-state” form, which might be defined at pool level.

-    A more “document-awareness” for Bonita. For instance, be able to include some kinds of metadata to Attachment variables, and be able to present such documents to the user in a chronological and case basis.

-    Some kind of “screenflow” graphical notation (i.e., a form navigation diagram), different for the one used in BPMN. Screenflows may be defined currently using form-exit variables and Actor continuity, but (I think; I am a bit zealot about modeling languages) it is confusing and prone to cluttering the process with low – level details to represent one thing (a screenflow, similar in concept to the ones used in MVC frameworks such as Struts) using a notation intended for another different one (the inter-personal and inter-organizational task flow of a business process). Some graphical process definition tools (for instance, the one included with BEA Aqualogic BPM, Ex-Fuego BPM and now Oracle BPM Suite) has this concept of separate symbol set for dealing with Screenflows.

I think currently the only way to edit a table is to use this kind of screen flow (you see the table, click “add”, then you are redirected to a “add record form”, then add, then return to the original screen, etc. This definitively clutters the process representation with low-level, unneeded details related not with the process itself, but with pure implementation issues.

Best regards.

No, it's different. A subprocess is a REAL business-related artifact. A screeflow is a form-building that would be defined at form level (for instance, having a "goto-form" or similar). Really, it's simply a way for defining complex forms (but forms at last). Mixing two kinds of things (form navigation UNDER THE SAME TASK and task navigation BETWEEN DIFFERENT TASKS) under the same notation (BPMN) is (I think) a bad thing. Just think about the problems that usually arise when using flow diagrams for defining business process instead of BPMN. Diagrams gets cluttered with details about application flow, instead of just process flow. 

In fact, I think I have read on the BPMN book (the one you can buy on BPMN's site) that the pragmatics of BPMN notation advice against using BPMN diagrams for representing artifacts at a finer level of details than tasks.

I am talking about a clear way for defining parent - child relationships betwen forms. Obviously, if there were a simple way at form level for defining form flow rules (for instance: "if button 'x' pressed then go to form x with parameters a,b, c, and then return"), such a notation for screen flows at diagram level would not be needed.

Best regards.

I'd like the ability to only allow certain users/groups to start a new case, in much the same way that you can only let certain users/groups complete steps within a process.

I agree absolutely

Last edited by data (2010-10-13 20:41:20)

Hi community,

Markus has published a topic at suggestions about Business view/roundtrip modeling and i found his ideas very interesting.

BR

A really small one: some way to identify in Studio what tabs where modified. For instance, if a task's data tab has a local variable defined, that this tab is marked somehow (color, icon, anything). This way, when you see a process modeled by other, you can have an idea of what have been done.
Resumed: Some visual mark in tabs where default values were modified.