Suggest Improvements


Do you have a suggestion for the next feature we should implement in our BPMN toolkit? Anything you got stuck with modeling BPMN?

Create a new topic in the users section to share your thoughts and help us improve our BPMN modeler.


I was wondering whether you could include a feature described below to some future version of your modeler/viewer.

When process diagrams get longer and it is not possible (or comfortable) to see the whole diagram at once, the labels for swimlanes and pools are no longer visible for most of the time. That usually causes confusion of who is who. It would be great to have the labels stick to the left side of the screen wherever I currently am in the diagram.

Thank you keep up the good work.


Thanks for your feedback. Our current focus is on boudary events, markers and lanes. Once we finished that, we consider your input for usability improvements.



This project looks very promising. One modelling feature that seems to be missing at the moment is the ability to configure whether the Start Event of an “Event Subprocess” is interrupting or non-interrupting.

A nice to have (but expensive to implement) feature would be an auto-arrangement similar to the one in the yaoqiang bpmn editor.

Keep up the good work.


Thanks for your feedback and suggestions.

Supporting Event Subprocess Modelling is on the agenda for this year.

I am not so sure when or if ever we will support auto arrangement, since this is very complex and time consuming - as you say.



I would suggest an API or way for developers to send users to this site with BPMN 2.0 code, and for the site to automatically load that BPMN 2.0 structure. I would love to integrate this editor with my site, but since you guys are adding new features so quickly, I feel downloading the editor from github to use on my site would become outdated very quickly. That’s why I would like to send users to with xml information of a previous diagram of their choosing.


Hey guys,

just a quick suggestion about boundary events - or more accurately intermediate events that might look like boundary events. In the example below I’ve attached an intermediate event really close to the edge of the event sub-process, which makes it look like it’s a boundary event. Someone modeling might not know that it’s not allowed.

So can i suggest that you snap elements like this so that they’re inside the bounds of the event sup-process that would reduce confusion. It would also be true of pools - where you also shouldn’t have boundary events.



We have got an open issue on automatically expanding these containers to avoid this kind of situation:

Feel free to comment on the issue or create a new topic to continue discussing.