Jump to content


Root Admin
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Gerry last won the day on October 21

Gerry had the most liked content!


About Gerry

  • Birthday 03/19/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

4,679 profile views

Gerry's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Year In

Recent Badges



  1. @BobbyB Understand the requirement, and its something we do want to introduce on our platform. I mention email because thats the other really common use case. There are lots of stand-alone image hosting services, many are free and simple to use and will give you what you need, perhaps one of those would be a short-term solution? Something like this: https://postimages.org/ this maybe? Gerry
  2. @BobbyB Thanks for the suggestion. The problem is this (a bit technical sorry), Document Manager works with "protected" storage under the hood. That is to say, the content (documents) are stored in storage that is quite robustly protected for security reasons, in essence we treat that data as private, not only to individual instances, but based on user rights/roles. This means, amongst other things that there is no direct path from the internet to this storage, and access to it would have to go through a session/API's making it entirely unsuitable for managing embedded images in emails. which by definition would need to be accessible publicly by someone that does not have a session on your Hornbill instance. So what looks like a simple change here is actually not that simple to achieve in practice. I continue to recognise the need for this, and I would love to find the time to have the team focus on a solution to this, but at the moment, its just not been a high agenda item. We would need to create a service behind the scenes to handle this public facing data, and it needs thinking about, and the right infrastructure needs to be put in place. A complete review of our distributed storage is currently underway and part of that is looking at publicly & efficiently accessible content serving, including images, video and documents/other resources are all being looked at. Wiith this in place we could then build some form of app for managing these types of resources, but for the reasons above this would not be based on Document Manager, it would look like it somewhat from a user perspective, but it would be a very different thing under the hood. So at the moment this is not in our 90-day pipeline I am afraid Gerry
  3. @Berto2002 Initially yes, it was an oversight to not provide a way to progress an external authorisation should you need to, which should be an administration function, and as a result have pushed that through the pipeline. It is of course possible to make this a user-level function too, but that will require quire a lot more consideration to things like rights/permissions and so on, that is something that we will need to consider further before any implementation. With this recent change though, at least you now have the ability to move those processes forward should you need to. If this is a common requirement that demands you have user-level functionality for this, I would possibly look at your process, maybe you need something different to authorisations? Gerry
  4. @Berto2002 Its in the works, currently I think in our Dev stream, should make it through the pipeline in the next week or so. Basically, if the BPM is suspended on an external auth node, and you press the resume button where you can manage running workflows, you will be presented with the following, and progress the authorisation. Gerry
  5. @Berto2002 There are multiple issues with trying to implement something like this. Hornbill is not designed to do bulk email distributions in this way, there is not direct correlation between organisation groups (collections of people) and email distribution lists. Technically of course, as you rightly say, the basic function is quite simple, but in detail there are a lot of issues here. Things like GDPR, email permissions and opt-ins/outs, dealing with bounce-backs, out of office notifications, invalid/missing email addresses, duplicate email address and so on are all things that need to be handled correctly. Now I appreciate you are about to say to me that GDPR is not a problem for you because your users are internal, and thats true for a lot of customers, but if we implement such a capability we also have to consider the many customers that use Hornbill, that do not only deal with internal employees but external contacts, then not only do we need to manage opt-ins/outs, but we need to also deal with managing email origin server reputation and all that goes along with that. There is a lot involved even though it sounds simple, in practice its not. I fully understand what you are trying to achieve, and I have empathy with the almost-there bridge image you used, but this is not something simple to do, and its not a common requirement/request, in fact in 9 years this has not come up once in relation to Hornbill. I am not saying we would not implement something like this, as you say most of the bits needed are already there, but its not something we could do quickly or simply. In the mean time, it would be better if you can use 0365 distribution lists, we have some on our own O365 account and they do work. Gerry
  6. There are two distinct situation here as best I understand, let me clarify with you if I may...* The first case is when the receiving party is the wrong person, so long as the receiving party is available to do so, you can simply add a third outcome to the external task to handle this scenario, so for example, the third outcome could be called "Cancel Approval Request" or something else that differentiates from the normal "Reject" outcome . The receiving party can choose this outcome which will resume the BPM allowing your process flow to take a specific path where you can loop back and send a new approval again. * The second case, this is when the external approval has been sent, but for some reason the receiving party does not action the approval, and the service provider/owner of the process needs to progress the process onwards without waiting for a timeout. For this we can extend the admin tool to include the ability to allow the BPM manager in the running processes area, when pressing the resume button while the process is in suspended state and sitting on an external approval node, could present a UI allowing the BPM manager to complete the approval with one of the outcomes configured for that external approval node. This will most likely need some changes in the BPM to handle this, one of our devs is looking at that over the next couple of days, and assuming there are no unexpected technical difficulties we will aim to add this capability in over the coming weeks. If you can confirm that I have understood what you are asking for that would be great. Thanks Gerry
  7. @Paul Alexander You said "up to a point", where do you run into limitations? Gerry
  8. @Paul Alexander Not at all, in my experience you are good at making things work well. I guess what I am curious about is can we make our approvals functionality more flexible to make it easier for you, but also to keep true to the overall design intent. Instinctively, giving the responsibility of something important like an "approval" to a collective where no one is responsible *feels* like a bad idea. Just a question, why not use a task, with appropriate outcomes to achieve what you want, unlike an approval, a task can in fact be assigned to a group or a role? Gerry
  9. @Paul Alexander The authorisation scheme was conceived on the basis that authorisations are individual as opposed to collective responsibilities. From a business process point of view it sounds like a really bad idea to have a group of people responsible for an authorisation. From a practical point of view, one has to manage the conflicts, like what happens if one approves and another rejects, is it a good idea that depending on who "gets there first" a business process could get either an approval or a rejection under the exact same conditions. The problem with weighting per role is that make things not only really complicated to implement, but also really complicated for people to understand. I will take a look at that, as I am not really sure just how much of a change that would be, but given the auth system was built with a view of individual rather than group responsibility, I have a feeling thats going to be very complicated to implement. Gerry
  10. @Paul Alexander The very nature of parallel processing means that one thread cannot break the other threads of processing, so no, it would not be possible to break out of a parallel processing scope until all parallel threads are completed. If this relates to athorisations, why not just the authorisation node that deals with multiple approvals and weighting etc...? this is what its built for Gerry
  11. @Dave Longley A bit late in the day here, but could we jump on a quick zoom call at some point, I just want to find out a little more about your use case if possible. Gerry
  12. @samwoo The problem is there is no perfect answer here to layouts, we either put the buttons on a separate row, or not, and in this case we opted not to to save vertical space. Knowing that the buttons can wrap / exceed the size of the screens, to some degree it is incumbent on you to be sensible with the number of buttons and size of the text on each button to ensure that in most use cases you will not see this problem. What we should do beyond that is limit the number of buttons and post that limit provide a "more" dropdown. The reason we do not do that is we would then start to add the complexity of having to order/prioritise, adapt for mobile and so on. We will look at other options, but our very best option at the moment that is universally applicable is to suggest applying common sense to the number and sizes of buttons you create Gerry
  13. @Ehsan @sprasad @Daniel Dekel I wanted to pickup on one of these points, specifically "Notifications - Descending/ascending order option within the notifications pop-up" and I will refer back to numerous prior discussions and explanations of this point, which I think describes very well why we will not be implementing this. @sprasad You mentioned specifically in the feedback document a couple of points I wanted to respond to directly. I want to say that this has nothing to do with being "important enough", I have responded a number of times to this same request and explained that this is not something we would be changing, we are not going to adapt a generalised notification system into a call request work list. We take every request for change/enhancement seriously, but we also have a responsibility to all customers and their needs. As I have previously stated on this topic, if you want a chronologically sortable priority list of things you need to do, the notifications popup is not the place to do this, this is what the request list is for. It would be better to perhaps think about why you tend to gravitate towards the notification popup list instead of the request list for your workflows, perhaps from that we can find improvements to the request list. You also stated.. I can understand your perspective, but I have to tell you, thats not what the majority of people who were using Hornbill would tell you. The previous UI was dated and of its time, and had many usability issues, these needed to be addressed. Beyond that point, we also have a strategic roadmap which requires us to "keep up with fashion", we have plans to make many changes/improvements all of which require such navigation changes. The previous experience worked fine, in the same way as "at the time" the Windows 3.1 style worked fine, as did the DOS experience before it, but technology, fashion and ultimately demands from users move on, which is why we had (sometimes thrust upon us) Windows 7, 8, XP, Vista, 10 and soon 11, things have to move on, even if not everyone loves every step along the way (we all remember Vista right), I very much doubt anyone who is using Windows 10 today would be happy going back to Windows 3.1. As a vendor we have two choices when it comes to revolution over evolution, we can either a) leave existing customers where they are and release new major versions with breaking changes etc, and impose a "migration" exercise on each customer as we go, or b) we adopt a Continuous Delivery model and we bring our customers through the evolution/revolution cycles with us. Back in the days of Supportworks we did the former, as was common with On-Prem software solutions of the day, but with Hornbill we adopted the latter, and its been very successful for us, adoption rates are 10x higher with Hornbill Service Manager than they ever were with Supportworks and this is largely due to the fact that customer do not have to upgrade/own the technology and are happy to be on the journey. Of course not everyone will love every change, but I would hope that the overall solution still delivers. A continuous delivery model only works if a) we focus on things that are generically useful to all customers, and b) our customers allow us to deploy on a CD basis. I appreciate your judgement that our development efforts could be put to "much better use" and I think if you were the only user we had to satisfy, that would be 100% correct, but we have a diverse range of use cases, in a broad range of companies all have specific needs, and our focus has to be on that bigger picture. Gerry
  14. @Rashid.Ahmed Thanks for the question. This is exactly what Hornbill is built to do, we have many customers that do exactly what you are describing, and there is no additional modules required to achieve this. The only consideration for additions here would be to budget for: - * Any help you need from our customer success team in terms of onboarding your finance team, getting them trained, getting their processes initially built and generally getting them comfortable so they can become self-sufficient. We can do as little or as much of this as you would need us too, or if you are comfortable with the solution you can do it all yourself of course. * You will need a number of additional user subscriptions for those users that will need access to Hornbill in the same way as your current team(s) have access. There are no issues with this sort of setup, we can segregate requests, queues and data in pretty much any way you would need, the security and visibility model implemented on the Hornbill platform is both highly flexible and very robust. Best thing to do would be to engage with one of our customer success folks and discuss what you want to do, I am sure we can get you up and running quickly. Gerry
  15. @Gary.Reynolds No problem, thanks for the feedback, glad the issues are sorted. We have lots of incremental improvements to other ares coming now we have the base changes deployed. Gerry
  • Create New...