[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Phpgroupware-users] Summary of "TTS Request for comments" response

From: Dave Hall
Subject: Re: [Phpgroupware-users] Summary of "TTS Request for comments" response
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:39:28 +1000

Drago Bokal <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hallo all,
> in the past week there came several comments in reply to my request,
> thank you for them all. They addressed several issues and in this 
> emailI'll try to summarize them and reply to them.
> 1. Suggestions intimately related to the project
> It was suggested to use the UML for visualization instead of Petri 
> Nets.As far as I understand, UML is just a language for describing 
> models,and Petri nets can be described usig UML. Certainly the 
> suggestion is
> interesting and will be addressed later, when visualization of 
> Petri nets
> will be implemented.
> Another comment was to use TTS for various systems, not just bugs
> (such as computer and network problems, down to lihgt bulbs and up to
> inventory sales). Indeed, this is exactly the point. Using the 
> suggestedupgrade it could be done by having several entry points 
> into the Petri net,
> and later this will be done having several different Petri nets in 
> the system.
> 2. TTS, Bugzilla, anthill and other systems
> We have been using anthill for a while and this also initiated the 
> wholething. The initial idea was to port AH into PHPGW, and later I 
> realizedthat Dave has started on it. I've obtained his code from 
> the CVS and
> started to work on it, fixed some things and managed to finish the 
> formfor displaying bugs. But then the TTS appeared again, and as in 
> Anthillthere was lots of coding that was just the hardcoding of 
> specific Petri
> Net into PHP I decided to cut it there and solve things in a more 
> generalway using TTS. As I propose, the default Petri Net in TTS 
> will be the one
> for Anthill, therefore it could be considered as a replacement.
> However, the users should be aware that the generalisation has its 
> costsand also that the datamodel of TTS a subset of the datamodel 
> of Anthill.
> If there is any interest in continuing the work on Anthill, contact 
> me to
> send you the code I wrote, as I will abandon that and work on the TTS.

I would still be interested in having a look at the work which you did
on this.  My work on Anthill has stalled due to some issues with my
client and their agent.  I know Vincent (author of Anthill) is
interested seeing someone continue this work.

I think Anthill and a more general TTS have different target audiences
and I see no problem with phpGroupWare having both apps for potential
users to chose from.

> There were suggestions for using RT's API and some other systems were
> also mentioned: I am sorry to say but these things are beyond the 
> scopeof the project. Thank you for the hint, however: if we find an 
> use for
> that, then we'll try also to find time to implement those ideas.
> 3. Platform issues and paralel developement of the TTS
> I intend to post the finished project on both PHPGW and EGW CVS
> repositories, if a team of some project has a problem with that, 
> pleaselet me know.

I have no problem with you providing the code to both projects.  For
phpGroupWare we have a process for obtaining cvs access.  See
for more info

I also think you will find that the 2 platforms are not 100% compatiable
and the gap is likely to widen very quickly.  Now that 16RC1 is out we
will be working hard on porting apps to our xslt template engine - which
I noticed eGroupWare has dropped.

> I was also told that there is some parelel 
> developementof TTS going on simultaneously: this makes me believe 
> that the choice
> of TTS was the right one.

Yes, there are some people from pro business who have already started on
this work.  I am sure they would be interested in working with you on this.

> In the past days I have developed the 
> main part:
> the implementation of Petri Net in the TTS, and it required adding 
> a new
> field to the ticket and modifying the new_ticket and view_ticket 
> forms and
> the index as well. The rest of the project that I still intend to 
> do deals 
> with
> maintenace of the Petri Net itself and is independent from the rest 
> of the job.
> I suggest two ways of merging the changes: first would be that one 
> finishesthe upgrades and submits the new code to the CVS (together 
> with all upgrading
> infrastructure) and then the other submits his code as an upgrade 
> of the new
> code. I volunteer to be the second one, as inserting my code into 
> any other's
> does not require much work.
> The second would be that we exchange the files and upgrading 
> instructions and
> then produce a single new version of TTS. This would probably 
> require a bit 
> less
> coding effort, but more organization and interdependencies. 
> However, it would
> connect us closer together (and eventually, we can even meet for a 
> glass of
> beer :)

I can speak from experience, probiz are great hosts :)

> 4. Connecting TTS with other XGW applications
> Since using the GW I have observed that the applications and their 
> data are 
> in general
> poorly interconnected. Therefore we proposed a system called Pajek, 
> that would
> implement the general relation infrastructure into the GW. The idea 
> is that 
> various GW
> applications produce sets of objects, one just has to define 
> those
> sets of objects. The system could be both integrated into the 
> applications, or
> independent from them, so that apps themselves do not know about it.
> The prototype of this system will be ready by the end of october as 
> well.
> Unfortunately the specifications of the system Pajek are currently 
> only 
> available
> in Slovenian:
> The english translation will be ready at least with the prototype 
> of the 
> system.
> Such system probably requires more integration with the API and 
> therefore more
> work from the side of the dedicated GW develoeprs, therefore we 
> wanted to have
> first a working prototype (and therefore a proof of the concept), 
> and only 
> then start
> communicating with the GW's community.

I would suggest that you translate this to english and post a link here.
 This sounds like it will involve some discussion.

> 5. Extra features:
> There was a list of features suggested, which unfortunately reach 
> beyond the
> scope of this project. Let me summarize them here, if someone finds 
> motivationto implement them:
> * advanced handling of the user notifications
> * advanced ticket filtering
> * more sophisticated use of categories to categorize tickets
> I've integrated the comments into the new version of specifications,
> which is available on
> Again, thank you all for your contributions, time and ideas suggested.
> If some new ones appear, they will be appreciated.

I look forward to seeing where this all leads.


Dave Hall

Attachment: dave.hall.vcf
Description: Card for <>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]