Thoughts on Waiting until 20xx for WF

Matt Winkler on using WF 3.X

Jon Flanders' — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:22:47 GMT

Matt has a great post on WF 3.X and 4.0 – I totally concur.

re: Thoughts on Waiting until 20xx for WF

AvaSys.Healy — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:07:45 GMT

It seems pretty clear the provisoes to work with WF 3.x are either you're already vested or have an immediate, compelling, and overriding need for WF in an application. Other than that the WF/C 4.0 impedance mismatch appears just too large to start investing in WF 3.x at this late date for anything but learning and familiarity.

Also, and as an entirely off-topic note, it would be great if there were an MS Rules Server 2010 and accompanying Enterprise Rules[/Policy] Manager entirely independent of WF / BizTalk / SharePoint and which worked with Oslo's DSL capabilities and repository.

re: Thoughts on Waiting until 20xx for WF

mwinkle — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:41:38 GMT

AvaSys.Healy,

I think any technology one adopts needs to have a compelling need to the user. I go back to what I said, if WF provides you with a positive "return" on a project today, go ahead and use it. The tough part is how you define return.

When I was in evangelism around the time netfx3 shipped (late 2006, 2007), I was working with orgs who were super excited to have just moved to netfx2 and VS2005. The definitions of immediate, "late date", etc are all relative to the situation one is in.

re: Thoughts on Waiting until 20xx for WF

Demy — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:20:29 GMT

Great explanation Matt. On the "wish list" for WF 4.0 you published here, I've found at the last position what is one of the main topics we request to MS: Make rehosting and extensibility easier.

I think that WF 4.0 adoption could be in creased expecially if you can provide a great and simple WF Designer Rehosting experience. Providing programs that make use of WF technologies with the ability to give the power of "customize" the Workflow to the end user via WF Designer could be really really interesting.

re: Thoughts on Waiting until 20xx for WF

mwinkle — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:22:49 GMT

Demy, check out the last few minutes of my presentation at PDC (http://channel9.msdn.com/pdc2008/TL21/ ), not the questions but the very end of the talk right before the questions to see where we're headed. It's been one of the features I'm responsible for, so I'm excited for folks to see what's going on there!

Matt W. Levels Questions On WF Concerns

Bayer White, Connected Systems MVP — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:01:17 GMT

Matt W. Levels Questions On WF Concerns

Workflow WF Reference Links for 2009-01-09

赤脚小子 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:23:59 GMT

WorkflowReferenceLinks:

1.我们能从BPMN2.0期望什么？前面的参考引用中提到BPMN不止一次，但是究竟什么是BPMN可能你还不大清楚。所以，还是让我们先...

The Road to WF 4.0 (Part 1)

The .NET Endpoint — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 04:39:08 GMT

The topic of 4.0 migrations has come up several times over the past week – in e-mail conversations with

re: Thoughts on Waiting until 20xx for WF

anand99 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:43:55 GMT

Matt

I am curious to know why when re-doing WF BPMN/BPEL standards compliance was not taken into consideration? Is there any plan to support persisting the workflows that are created in BPEL 2.0 or at least provide some capability to export the workflow to BPEL 2.0?

re: Thoughts on Waiting until 20xx for WF

jennifer e — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:55:56 GMT

Hi Matt,

Glad I found your blog as I am new to WF. I am on a project where, unfortunately, we cannot wait for 4.0 (as much as I would like to after reading about all of the changes ahead). I have a question about best practices for coding WFs now that will convert well to 4.0. I read that dependency properties (either should not or will not?) be used in 4.0. What should be used in 3.5 in it's place where dependency properties are needed?