[jbpm-dev] new blog post about processes and rules integration

Sat Aug 4 07:09:49 EDT 2012

Hi Maciej,
Thank you very much for your feedback!
I will check your notes to see if I made some mistakes.
All the examples that you see in the posts has their own test that you can
run, if you want to have a project per example we will end up with 10
different projects which will contain just one single test.

We should find a way to add this content to the docs. I mention to marco,
that as soon as the book is published I will be focused in my blog and in
the docs, so we can start adding this kind of things.

More comments inline :)

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Maciej Swiderski <mswiders at redhat.com>wrote:

>  Mauricio, these posts are really good. I like that they are kind of
> series that provides more and more details and advanced usage scenarios and
> what's in my opinion most important real life examples. Great work!
>
> Any idea on how many posts you are going to provide? Was wondering that it
> looks like nice content to be introduced into documentation as well. Maybe
> not whole posts but sort of essence of it, as users especially new comers
> will look into documentation first and could not be aware of our blogs,
> wdyt?
>
I have two more scheduled about processes and rules before jumping to
Fusion

>
> So far you have not introduced the main (in my opinion) integration
> between process and rule - business rule task, but that is probably
> scheduled for next posts... However introduction of using work item
> handlers here is more than needed. That gives opportunity to users to get a
> chance to get familiar with work item handlers concept.
>
I kinda understand your point, but the Business Rule Task from the BPMN2
specification perspective is more related to the Stateless interaction
mentioned in my posts. Talking with one of the BPMN2 spec members they only
think about that kind of interaction. I think that at some point Tiho was
working in something to be able to link a business rule task to a special
work item like that one that I was trying to show in my examples. If that
work is already done, I will update my posts to show that integration. I
think that most of the true advantages of having the Rule Engine are
Stateful scenarios where almost everything is handled as Facts (which is
the topic of the next posts).

>
> In the third one - great stuff is about reactive modes - both based on
> fireUntilHalt and event listeners and some pros and cons of each solution.
> Have not tried the examples myself but what could really rock is an
> runnable example for each post to conclude it.
>

Do you have a better idea about how we can distribute the examples? I mean,
all the examples are in my github repo.  It will really rock if we
standardize this kind of things. The archetypes that you mention some time
ago will probably help a lot :)

>
> P.S.
> While reading I spotted few minor things:
> - on first post last two process diagrams (illustrations) shows inclusive
> gateway but both text and annotations on its sequence flows refer
> to/suggest exclusive gateway
>
I need to check this.. but I probably made a mistake there

>  - on third post I think you meant beforeProcessStarted method of process
> event listener instead of afterProcessStarted as when this method is called
> process is already finished or reached first state node which could be
> after some rules evaluation nodes, isn't it?
>
> I need to check this specific example, but if I've used
 afterProcessStarted probably was because of the reason that you mention. I
want to execute some rules after the process reaches the first wait state.

Maciej
>
>
> On 29.07.2012 14:14, Mauricio Salatino wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
> I've post a new article about the process and rules integrations.
> I'm extremely open to discuss if this is the right way of exposing this
> topics. I've found that when people doesn't understand this topics they end
> up with very complicated architectural problems.
> The main idea behind these posts is to clarify from the functional
> behavior what kind of things can be done, in order to:
> 1) Gather feedback about new features that can be introduced to facilitate
> the adoption of certain patterns
> 2) Classify in different patterns the functional requirements to then
> explain which architecture fits better, or what kind of things the users
> needs to be have in mind to define their own architecture.
>
>  http://blog.athico.com/2012/07/processes-rules-or-rules-processes-3x.html
>
>  After this post a set of patterns will be described and then a set of
> architectural posts will go out. At this point feedback from the other
> developers is crucial :)
>
>  Cheers
> --
>  - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org
>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
>
>  - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbpm-dev mailing listjbpm-dev at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev
>
>
>

-- 
 - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
 - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org
 - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar

 - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbpm-dev/attachments/20120804/b06d8f72/attachment.html 