[Nathanba]

It inherently asks for a custom implementation because it's almost like workflows are just how you'd have to code and run everything anyway. Conceptually: why wouldn't we want to reconnect to any work we are currently in progress of, just like in a videogame where if we lose connection for a splitsecond, we want to be able to keep going where we left off? So therefore we must save the current step persistently and make sure that we can resume work and never lose it. Workflow engines also do no magic: They still just run code and if it fails in a place that we didn't manually checkpoint (=by making it into a separate task/workflow/function/action/transaction that is persistable) then we still lose data so.. at that point why not just try doing it this way everywhere whether it's running in a "workflow engine" or not. Before "workflow engines" we already had db transactions but those were mostly for our benefit so we don't mess up the db with partial inserts. Although so far what I've seen in open source workflow engines is that they don't let you work with user input easily, it's sad how they all start a new thread and then just block the thread while it waits for the user to send something. This is obviously not how you'd code a crud operation. In my opinion this is a huge drawback of current workflow engines. If this was solved, we should literally do everything as a workflow I think. Every form submission from the user could offer to let the user continue where he left off and we saved all his data so "he can reconnect to his game" (to revive the videogame metaphor I started with)