<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.6212" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I like this content, however is a little difficult
to follow, would be a good idea writing Scrum-like user stories?</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=salaboy@gmail.com href="mailto:salaboy@gmail.com">Mauricio
Salatino</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mrietvel@redhat.com
href="mailto:mrietvel@redhat.com">Marco Rietveld</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=jbpm-dev@lists.jboss.org
href="mailto:jbpm-dev@lists.jboss.org">jBPM Dev List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:07
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [jbpm-dev] Human Task Module
API and DataStructures Proposedchanges</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Hi Marco,
<DIV>Thank you very much for your feedback, it really helps to move this
forward in the right direction.</DIV>
<DIV>Some comments inline:<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Marco Rietveld <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:mrietvel@redhat.com"
target=_blank>mrietvel@redhat.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<DIV>Hi Mauricio, Maciej, <BR><BR>+1 on configuration. <BR><BR>+5 for "
facade for process interactions that hides some of the steps and expose very
simple API to interact with."<BR>In essence, we don't want the process
engine (or anything else) to trust the HT component at all -- and vice
versa. <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>The APIs exposed should be that. Like the current TaskService interface,
only operations. I would like to know that we are on the same page about the
interfaces. I'm interested to expose similar interfaces to the one exposed by
the specification, which are extremely similar to the TaskService interface.
On top of that I would like to promote some decoupling which enable us to
provide different implementations for features which are required to integrate
against a Content Repository, or something similar. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<DIV>Maurcio, I like the API's that you defined in the second document
(HumanTaskAPIAndDataStructuresProposal), but I'm missing how they would be
used with the current architecture. Do you have idea's about that?
(Actually, see the 3rd para after this, for more ideas). <BR><BR>Also, I
think that the local human task service needs to be pulled away from the
current code base: at the moment, the local human task service is
essentially a facade that is based on an infrastructure that was not
designed for it's use that way. In fact, the local human task service <I>was
initially designed as a demo</I> -- but has grown far beyond that. Luckily,
it has an API which means we can change the underlying implementation.
<BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>The idea of the interfaces that I've created and described in the
document is that. Behind those interfaces we can implement a very straight
forward infrastructure like for example: Interface -> Implementation ->
Database. As mentioned in another email, the Task*Service Services should be
as stateless and as simple as possible.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<DIV>In short, I think the use case for the local task service is
sufficiently different from the rest of the use cases (standalone/hornetq,
etc.) that it should have it's own infrastructure -- almost down to the task
functional level. The main reason for this is that persistence (especially
tx's) are a big part of the use case for the local task service -- but the
tx logic and request handling in human-task wasn't really written with that
in mind. I would like to consider rewriting the code so that persistence and
request handling could be even more pluggable than they are (depending on
local or standalone task service). <BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>On top of the very simple local implementation we can build the transport
layers or reuse an existing framework like camel/switchyard. If we are in an
EE environment we can instantiate the Local/Simple configuration and plug the
transports provided by the container. One of the advantage of CDI is that it
will make our life easier from the testing perspective and also from the
pluggeablity and configuration perspective.</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<DIV><BR>Separating the pure human task code out from the other concerns
(request handling, persistence) will probably also help to create the API's
that you define. <BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>The APIs that I've propose doesn't care about those topics, that's one of
the main points. In some way the structures that the API is proposing affects
how the persistence entities will look like, but I want to have clear
interfaces that exposes the semantic of the work that we want to do with the
module: Human Interactions. </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<DIV><BR>Lastly, +10 on the API's -- but I really do want them to be
Interfaces. Where possible, I'd really like to make sure that the underlying
classes are not accessible to the user and that there's a real focus on
creating an interface that satisfies a User's need -- instead of simply
creating functionality for the user and exposing it.
<BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>They are all interfaces, we cannot force to the users to use one
implementation. I'm pushing CDI forward to guarantee standards ways for
the user to plug their own implementation if they want. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I will be adding more details to the wiki page today to clarify some of
the points that were mentioned in this thread. </DIV>
<DIV>Unfortunately, I will be side tracked tomorrow with the form builder, but
as soon as I can get back with this topic I will try to upload a very simple
PoC to show how the interfaces will look like and
the responsibility of each service. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<DIV>Oh yeah, +1 on not forcing users to use the software a particular way:
they always end up surprising you and using it another way. The more ways
you can expose an API the better..
<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Marco<BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Cheers </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<DIV><BR>27-06-12 23:28, Maciej Swiderski:<BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=h5>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Hi Mauricio,<BR><BR>Do we foresee any use cases
where task service will be used without process engine? If so, I agree we
could make it as generic as possible but priority number 1 should be
integration with process engine to make it simple and intuitive.<BR>In
general I like this separation but I am not convinced about task
definition service as to me it looks bit over designed to the use cases I
am aware of. One issue I see with this is that we introduce task
definition management in human task module which I don't think should be
concerned about. It should be only runtime component and not repository
for task definition. If we think about storing task definitions that are
reusable across processes we should store them in guvnor rather than in
additional component (ht module). Since both designer and form builder is
integrated with it so no need for yet another integration. This is more of
tools responsibility and not runtime component. Especially important in
case of local task service, since how we could store/deploy task
definition into local task service?<BR>Same applies for task delegation
service, as this kind of information could come from another place -
repository and be utilized by tooling.<BR><BR>Configuration is week point
in human task module currently so I believe that this is very important
element to be improved while refactoring (or even redesiging) task module.
I would see this as single configuration service that allows to configure
- in this new way - all services with defaulting to convention over
configuration so well documented convention of configuration points is a
must.<BR><BR>As it comes to integration between process engine and human
task it should be as simple as possible. I agree that in some cases use of
switch yard and camel makes sence but we should not force users to include
it every time. Simple interactions should be available and in my opinion
out of the box. For instance, make use of jms provider that AS delivers
instead of putting additional frameworks in between.<BR><BR>If you want to
keep the services not aware of process interaction then we should deliver
facade for process interactions that hides some of the steps and expose
very simple API to interact with, like addTask, completeTask, getTask,
getAssignerTasks, etc (part of this is probably in task instance service).
That will make a smooth interaction from the process side which as
mentioned already is most important, in my opinion.<BR><BR>For CDI, I am
not expert here but what about standalone adoptions, like swing, or other
desktop frameworks, will CDI fit into that?<BR><BR><BR>Let's encourage
others here to speak up as we need more votes on this refactor.<BR>Maciej
<BR><BR><BR>On <A href="tel:27.06.2012%2020" target=_blank
value="+12706201220">27.06.2012 20</A>:17, Mauricio Salatino wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">Thanks Maciej for the questions. I've included
comments between the bullets
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P>"Mauricio, couple of questions at the very beginning to understand
correctly your proposal:</P>
<UL
style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 2.25em; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; TEXT-ALIGN: left; border-spacing: 0px; outline: 0px">
<LI>Q: how does task def service applies to process interactions -
when task definition will be deployed?<BR>A: I was trying to not think
about the process engine for exposing a Human Task Interactions APIs,
but I understand your question. Right now inside our HTWorkItems we
are calling the taskClient.add method which in fact is doing a deploy
and an instantiation of a task based on the WorkItem params map. This
parameters map is created based on the userTask defined in a process
and its internal data mappings. That's from one side. <BR>With
the form builder, what can be done right now is to "decorate" a
userTask from a business process and define a form based on it. So
basically we do something like: pick a process, get all the userTasks
and for each task we end up with a TaskForm.def this TaskForm.def can
be associated with a TaskDefinition, instead with a TaskInstance,
promoting reusability as much as we can.<BR>If we have this
TaskDefService, we can make both: the WorkItemHandlers and the Form
builder to consume the same information and reuse that as much as we
can. We can include the process designer in the loop and make the
Company Tasks Definitions available for the editor, so the user when
want to place a new UserTask inside their process, can choose from a
list of presets instead of filling all the mappings, user assignments,
presentation details, notifications settings, etc.<BR><BR>
<LI><SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">Q: delegation service
- since that is on task def level - what about sharing this
information on concurrent task instances since based on the same
definition expressions can be evaluated to different values<BR>A: Yes
that's the idea. In the static information we can have an expresion,
in that case the expresion will be evaluated with the TaskInstance
context and the result will be placed in the task instance
context, the task def information will not be changed, so it can be
safely shared between instances. All the taskDef related structures
should contain "templating" information which means something for the
company. All the runtime status will be kept in the task instances.
Think about TaskDef, DelegationsDef, NotificationDef, as shortcuts for
the users to not define everything each time that they want to
instantiate a task.<BR><BR></SPAN>
<LI
style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; border-spacing: 0px; outline: 0px"><FONT
face="Lucida Sans, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
color=#555555><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Q:how is this going to be
configured - per service or will there be a configuration service as
well</SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT
face="Lucida Sans, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
color=#555555><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">A: good question, we can
add this topic for our board session :) I'm not a CDI expert, but
based on what I've being reading, you can provide a default set of
services that will be automatically instantiated and
injected, and then you can provide alternatives. If the user doesn't
want the default settings he can defined the alternatives via a vary
basic configuration file. Using CDI qualifiers we can, with a pair of
annotations, define which set implementations (1 configuration) do we
want for our whole set of services. </SPAN></FONT> </LI></UL>
<P> </P>
<P>Would be really nice to see how this is going to be utilized from
following perspectives:</P>
<UL>
<LI
style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; border-spacing: 0px; outline: 0px">Q:
process engine - how process engine will interact with human task
services<BR>A: This should not be a problem of this module, and I
think that this can be considered as an integration problem, so it can
be <BR>fixed with an specialized framework such as switchyard
and/or camel. I've being reading about the CDI support for them..
and <BR>I think that we can go in that way. <BR>The
Callbacks/Listener Service is intended to store information about the
Task Owners and their interest to be notified about a tasks events. We
need to think about this a little bit more, because the Process Engine
is not the Task Owner of a TaskInstance that has being created by a
business process instance. The business process instance is the owner
of that task in that case, so we will need to keep a reference from
that process instance inside this service. When I say, reference I
mean a business key, an ID, an endpoint or something to be able to
notify the interested ones.
<LI
style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; border-spacing: 0px; outline: 0px">Q:
task client - how to access tasks and to perform operations on
them"<BR>A: via the TaskInstanceService, its the same as our
TaskClient right now. (but restricted for TaskInstances and
TaskInstancesQueries, not add, not Comments, not attachments, not
notifications) </LI></UL>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><FONT
face="Lucida Sans, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
color=#555555><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><BR></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><FONT
face="Lucida Sans, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
color=#555555><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">Cheers</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><FONT
face="Lucida Sans, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
color=#555555><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12px"><BR></SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Mauricio
Salatino <SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:salaboy@gmail.com"
target=_blank>salaboy@gmail.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV>Hi guys,</DIV>
<DIV>I'm back with more wiki pages. I was thinking about how to
improve the Human Task Module and I came back with this wiki
page</DIV>
<DIV>that shows some proposals. </DIV>
<DIV>The main idea behind the proposal is to modularize as much as we
can the features provided by the human task module. I've also
included</DIV>
<DIV>into the proposal the concept of TaskDefinition which will allow
us to add a nice integration with the form builder (in modeling and in
runtime phases).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I'm trying to move towards CDI to leverage all the mechanisms
provided by the framework and the fact that exposing CDI beans across
different platforms is extremely easy these days. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><A
href="https://community.jboss.org/wiki/HumanTaskAPIAndDataStructuresProposal"
target=_blank>https://community.jboss.org/wiki/HumanTaskAPIAndDataStructuresProposal</A><BR
clear=all>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I understand that the changes proposed in the wiki looks quite
heavy, but I do believe that we can fit the current code base into
that structure without loosing functionality.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The document is showing APIs and Data Structures only. i think
that we can assume that all the services implementation will represent
simple stateless services which will </DIV>
<DIV>insert and read information from a database,
so architecturally speaking from that perspective the
service implementations should be straight forward. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I will be filling the Data Structure Sections briefly, but I
would like to share the main concepts with you guys to gather
feedback, as always.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Cheers</DIV><SPAN><FONT color=#888888>
<DIV><BR></DIV>-- <BR> - MyJourney @ <A
href="http://salaboy.wordpress.com"
target=_blank>http://salaboy.wordpress.com</A>
<DIV> - Co-Founder @ <A href="http://www.jugargentina.org"
target=_blank>http://www.jugargentina.org</A><BR> - Co-Founder @
<A href="http://www.jbug.com.ar"
target=_blank>http://www.jbug.com.ar</A><BR> <BR> - Salatino
"Salaboy" Mauricio -</DIV><BR></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all>
<DIV><BR></DIV>-- <BR> - MyJourney @ <A
href="http://salaboy.wordpress.com"
target=_blank>http://salaboy.wordpress.com</A>
<DIV> - Co-Founder @ <A href="http://www.jugargentina.org"
target=_blank>http://www.jugargentina.org</A><BR> - Co-Founder @ <A
href="http://www.jbug.com.ar"
target=_blank>http://www.jbug.com.ar</A><BR> <BR> - Salatino
"Salaboy" Mauricio -</DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<FIELDSET></FIELDSET> <BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
jbpm-dev mailing list
<A href="mailto:jbpm-dev@lists.jboss.org" target=_blank>jbpm-dev@lists.jboss.org</A>
<A href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev" target=_blank>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>
<FIELDSET></FIELDSET> <BR><PRE>_______________________________________________
jbpm-dev mailing list
<A href="mailto:jbpm-dev@lists.jboss.org" target=_blank>jbpm-dev@lists.jboss.org</A>
<A href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev" target=_blank>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR></DIV></DIV><SPAN class=HOEnZb><FONT
color=#888888><PRE cols="72">--
jBPM/Drools developer
Utrecht, the Netherlands</PRE></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all>
<DIV><BR></DIV>-- <BR> - MyJourney @ <A
href="http://salaboy.wordpress.com"
target=_blank>http://salaboy.wordpress.com</A>
<DIV> - Co-Founder @ <A href="http://www.jugargentina.org"
target=_blank>http://www.jugargentina.org</A><BR> - Co-Founder @ <A
href="http://www.jbug.com.ar"
target=_blank>http://www.jbug.com.ar</A><BR> <BR> - Salatino
"Salaboy" Mauricio -</DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>jbpm-dev mailing
list<BR>jbpm-dev@lists.jboss.org<BR>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>