Process Mapping Logo

Process Mapping - Forums

Sharing 19 years of knowledge and experience

 
Metastorm BPM forums
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Jerome

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 5,507
Reply with quote  #1 
It's out there - the full Metastorm BPM Version 9 Review video. Click here....

It is a lot better than I thought, in fact. There are still a couple of issues, and (as usual) things I'd want to change, but overall the speed of process design and development will be greatly increased. That is especially true if you happen to like C#, because you can edit away right in the Designer - no %Script calls to fiddle with.

For analysts, the ease of process design has been increased with those swim-lanes (yes, I can see how they work now, and am beginning to like them!) and in-place editing.

The language editing is also going to be a big hit. Since there is also in-place editing of captions in forms (missed that in the review, sorry) it means you can simply switch languages as get to editing captions and actions and stages straight away. It could not be simpler.

There are issues such as the inevitable complexity of the overall class structure (for the techies among us) and the naming thereof can be confusing. A bit of experience will sort that. Given the promised sharing features (I am eager to see how it can work) that should be no problem as the techies can build connections and write ugly code (of course it's beautiful to you, but....) and leave the analysts to knock up pretty processes and forms!

Anyway, I'm a fan, and I'm giving it a 10/10 so far, as long as you don't include migration. I'll leave that as a separate issue once I have figured out how to make it play ball properly. Suffice it to say, remember all those warnings about all those hacks? You should've listened! Having said that, if you like hacking - it's all, and I mean all, in .net now, so you can 'hack' all day to make it do what you want!

__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0
daiwilliams

Veteran
Registered:
Posts: 122
Reply with quote  #2 
Thanks Jerome! this is very very helpful. Thanks for the time on this.

Dai


0
Nappy

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 1,087
Reply with quote  #3 
On the migration bit. Will there be a process by process option?

If you would have to move 20 processes at once it would be a nightmare i guess.

__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.

PS that's for V6/7 for V9 the problem is V9 at the moment ;)
0
Jerome

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 5,507
Reply with quote  #4 
You can convert each procedure and library individually.

I did see a lovely slide at the conference telling us that v7.6 and v9 procedures will happily run 'side-by-side'. I have no further information on this, however, so remain sceptical.

__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0
Jerome

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 5,507
Reply with quote  #5 
There are a few things that will need fixing before it is ready for me, however. So far:
  • default form colour not used
  • labels ignore form font style
  • RO fields appear editable
  • no way to set insert or delete ability of editable grids
  • You can't change the type of a Stage or an Action (we do that very often)
  • validation errors in visual scripts do not show the component (so you can't click the row to go there)
  • changing the case of a map name (and presumably others) does not take
  • A "Raise <flagname>" activity dragged to the visual script area has no indication of the flag raised (you can name it, but how often will it be forgotten, and how hard can it be to display?)
Some may be known issues, and some may be my misunderstanding, however.

__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0
Jerome

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 5,507
Reply with quote  #6 
OK, it seems not being able to change the Stage or Action (or Field, as it happens) is now a feature. To be fair, I can see how it would be really hard, given the way it is building classes for you. That, or course, allows the intellisense, and we are not going to want to lose that!

I guess we will have to be more careful building processes. Good news is that you can replace a stage with one of the same name and it should work as before (like changing an archive stage to a user stage). Better news is deleting a stage does NOT delete the linked Actions, so it will be easier to do that.

I can live with it, given the advantages.

The rest seem like easy fixes to me.

__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0
Jerome

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 5,507
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome
You can convert each procedure and library individually.

I did see a lovely slide at the conference telling us that v7.6 and v9 procedures will happily run 'side-by-side'. I have no further information on this, however, so remain sceptical.
I now understand that the full migration capability and side-by-side running as promised (with luck on the same server, too, although I would probably want to start with a fresh one) will be delivered later in SP1. The migration tool is working, but may not be perfect for a while, which is fair. It is getting improved before the release and probably in a slipstream.

I think this makes sense as it gives us a few months to try it out and plan our migration path. In most of our client sites that would be a 3 to 6 month process in any case. I also think what existing users have here is a pre-release to whet our appetites for the change-over. New customers will get the new benefits straight away, of course, and I'm sure that was a large factor in the plan.

I also feel that it will be, as far as I have seen yet, more stable than any point zero release from Metastorm. Given the huge task of just about changing the entire architecture, and leaving it almost working as it used to when required, I think that is an impressive achievement. It may have taken a while, but it was worth it.

I hereby offer the entire BPM development team (at least those in Wimbledon) a drink next time I am there! (you never know - I may get my enhancement requests bumped up in priority that way...;-)

__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0
Nappy

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 1,087
Reply with quote  #8 
Not changing stage or action......

Whoa....

That will hurt rapid development. I usualy freeform for a while before dust setles and we lock down the process. Naming conventions change several times usually during that first fase.

__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.

PS that's for V6/7 for V9 the problem is V9 at the moment ;)
0
Jerome

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 5,507
Reply with quote  #9 
Yup, me too. However, the fact that the actions don't get deleted mean it is at least easier to replace a stage with another, at least before code is added.

Not happy, but will survive.....

__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0
Jerome

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 5,507
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nappy
Not changing stage or action......

Whoa....

That will hurt rapid development. I usualy freeform for a while before dust setles and we lock down the process. Naming conventions change several times usually during that first fase.
On re-reading, I must point out I meant the Type. Names are changeable at any time. In fact, you can have multiple 'visible' names at run-time due to multiple-languages. That is one of the features I will take on board at the cost of not being able to change the stage type (eg from archive to user). In this case the advantages are large and loses small, I feel.

Oh, and you can change the 'visible' name (it's like the caption for a field, really) without affecting the underlying real name. Yet another big plus. I assume alerts do not get updated, but it is a vast improvement over previous versions, you must agree, I think.

__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0
KarlD

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 113
Reply with quote  #11 
Is there any way i can get exposure to Version 9?

I would work for FREE to get a good handle on this application. Offering up to two full weeks developer time to any organisation that can give me a good level of exposure to version 9.




0
Nappy

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 1,087
Reply with quote  #12 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nappy
Not changing stage or action......

Whoa....

That will hurt rapid development. I usualy freeform for a while before dust setles and we lock down the process. Naming conventions change several times usually during that first fase.
On re-reading, I must point out I meant the Type. Names are changeable at any time.

un-Whoa....

:)

dammit write your review in code, language can be deceiving, ehhrrr never mind so can code ;)

__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.

PS that's for V6/7 for V9 the problem is V9 at the moment ;)
0
Jerome

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 5,507
Reply with quote  #13 
Trying to install on Windows 7 (VMWare==Bloat (and I need an XP disk) && Virtual PC won't install).

All seems OK except the installation insists that KB957661 is installed.

This is now part of the OS, so not only is not required but I cannot install it. Does anyone have any idea (the name Artur is coming to mind....) how I can stop the install insisting on KB957661 which I think is not required?


__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0
Nappy

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 1,087
Reply with quote  #14 
Hi,

Attached a reg file with install info of the kb it may fool MS win7 install

Franc

ps use at own risk ;)

 
Attached Files
txt kb957661-2.reg.txt (1.25 KB, 40 views)


__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.

PS that's for V6/7 for V9 the problem is V9 at the moment ;)

0
Jerome

Avatar / Picture

Guru
Registered:
Posts: 5,507
Reply with quote  #15 
hadn't even thought of that!

I'll try - the risk is low as I have already rebuilt twice in less than 48 hours trying to get it going.

Tip: if you install Virtual PC, ensure hardware virtualisation is ON and that the XP virtual 'disk' (as they call it) is installed BEFORE Virtual PC. NFI why, mind you, but that is the only way it will work.


__________________
Post an example, and we will have a much better idea what the problem is. In about 90% of posts, the problem is one of communication. Examples bridge that gap.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!