Talk:Windows Workflow Foundation

Microsoft Windows: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Microsoft: .NET

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject .NET (assessed as Mid-importance).

Parallels to stream processing

Does WWF have many parallels to stream processing? If so, I think that this should be mentioned. 124.171.131.4 05:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what parallels there might be. The analogy seems like it would be weak. WWF is more like a flow chart than stream processing. 216.36.186.2 (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is impenetrable

It's ladden with buzzwords and corporate-speak and overall reads more like a Microsoft press release than an encyclopedia article. I can't fix this because I know nothing about the article subject. - Sikon (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's somewhat incomplete (and too short) and thus not helpful to beginners, but it does not look like a press release or corporate speech. It does list factual statements about the system, but without introducing (linking) the meaning of terms, so it doesn't really help a beginner indeed. Of course, since this isn't an easy topic anyway, there is no way to write a good Wikipedia article of this length, so if it's improved, I'm sure it will have much more text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.143.230.90 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The audience for this article is mid to senior level software developers and architects using version 3.5 of the .Net Framework. Software engineering is a field in which jargon is not only common place, but is how we communicate. As a software engineer with almost 20 years of Microsoft Development experience I can emphatically state that this is not buzzword laden or corporate speak, it is communicating to the audience in their language. WWF would not be a topic that junior developers would be involved in, thus the assertions of this not being helpful to beginners is also not germaine. Just because you are a contributor to Wikipedia, does not make you an expert on this topic and definitely does not qualify you to assess the quaility or accuracy of this article. Now if you were to become highly proficient in .Net that would be another story. Your commentary is yet another example of some yahoo sticking his nose into a Wkikpedia article without a clue and is the biggest problem facing Wikipedia. It's content is too biased by the opinions of an editorial community that often doesn't have a clue about an article, but has to stick their noses in anyway despite their ignorance. Is Sikon possibly yet another anti-Microsoft voice? Sikon sounds like a Java developer... if by your own admission you "know nothing about the subject" don't feel compelled to comment or read.—Preceding unsigned comment added 18:11, 29 December 2009

You probably could have said something just as elitist in half the words. The reality is that the WF article uses a lot of words, but says nothing. It probably was taken directly from an MS white paper or some equivalent advertising medium. I say this from experience; I've been working with WF for quite some time now, and I have yet to ascertain what this product is intended to do (if it's intended to be used for what our senior architect with 20 years of experience is having us use it for, MS has failed miserably) other than waste developer time. I would fix up the article, but like I said, I have experience with this product, but still can't fathom what problem this is actually supposed to solve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.116.27 (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The audience is not people with a microsoft supporter with 20 years experience who think they can tell a Java developer by a single comment on microsoft either. Senior level developers in .net 3.5 should really be looking at msdn or some subject-specific reference material and not wikipedia. Developers like me come to wikipedia because they want to know the basic high-level description of the concept in simple language. A person with a lot of experience in a subject is often the worst judge of what is "simple" in that subject. The entire point of an encyclopedia is to make all information available/understandable to everyone. Its not supposed to be a compilation of reference books for researchers/professionals on every topic under the sun. Having said that, I agree with SineBot that all this article lacks is a little more links/explanation of terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.231.22.202 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphascript, Betascript, Fastbook Publishing, Books LLC ...

I've removed the following VDM Publishing reference:

Lambert M. Surhone, Mariam T. Tennoe, and Susan F. Henssonow, Windows Workflow Foundation, Betascript Publishing, August 14, 2010, ISBN 978-6132267443

See: User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources and Amazon.com controversies#Sale of Wikipedia.27s material as books. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]