Hi Bernd, hi Koen I don't want to start over old discussions again but since I missed it what was the outcome of this diskussion? Was this the on about the question if task names should be unique or not? anonymous wrote : | Hmm, why do you need that "technical short name" and don't just use the name as business name (meaning the longer description")? | | There is no real downside of it, or is it? Introducing a new attribute is not necessary here in my oppinion, but correct me if I am wrong or missing something. | When coding and using for example taskService.completeTask(taskId, outcome) I somehow don't feel comfortable to use this long name even with spaces since transition names need to be unique for one task so they name is a kind of identifier or even a signal name to take this specific transition. Furthermore to facilate development of clients using the engine I would like to use a a kind of convention for transition names. For example after tasks which implement a user's decision which path to take in the process I'd prefer to give the same names to the transitions in different processes but a process specific description or long name for the transition. I hope I was able to point out my aspects. cheers Sebastian View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4261762#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...