November 2006 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Web console enhancements

by kukeltje

Yes, I did. That is the strange thing. building from ant does not complain about anything.... still looking into that View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982928#3982928 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982928

18 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: execution transitions, data flow and other associations

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

Koen, "koen.aers(a)jboss.com" wrote : I think that message flow and associations are typical constructs that are used by a business analist. I am not sure they are that important to the execution. | They are valuable modelling constructs. But we have to define wether they mean anything at runtime and if so, we have to create a logical story for those other link types. "koen.aers(a)jboss.com" wrote : Of course if message flows are added to the GPD at some point in time and the GPD is to operate on the same model as the runtime engine, it would make sense to add these capabilities to the core model. | The model used by the GPD is second to the real issue here. First we have to define if other link types make sense, second we have to get a crystal clear picture of what the other link types mean at design time and at runtime (if they have any runtime implications at all). Only after that story, we'll see if and how the GPD model is going to cope with this. "koen.aers(a)jboss.com" wrote : As for the question what a message flow would mean in jPDL, I think it could be used to somehow limit the visibility of the variables contained in this flow to all the nodes that are connected by the flow. If you have a document that has to be passed from one node to another and the analyst wants to model this graphically, the main thing is that the document is produced (entered) in one activity and consumed (available) in the other activity. I don't think that we should be considering to limit the visibility of all other variables in the process. The runtime impact of data-links then becomes quite thin. It only specifies that the data item is required input in the source activity... But the runtime is not why we would add this. We would add this for the business user to be able to create better models. Would you think that such a construct is usefull for business users ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982913#3982913 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982913

18 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: execution transitions, data flow and other associations

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

brittm: i'm not yet convinced about the shared processes as a general concept to pursue in jpdl. the implications are far reaching and i'm not yet sure this is a common use case. one thing that might help you already a little bit is that in jbpm 4 we will be componentizing the node implementations. so that you can build complete node packages, including jPDL-parsing, hibernate persistence, actionHandler based implementation, designer form, icon, ... That way it will become more feasible to develop your own custom node and really integrate it into the current runtime and toolset. maybe the shared subprocesses could become part of jbpm as a kind of advanced or add-on node package, not part of the default configuration. About links: i think they are something different. Each link is a named boolean that connects two concurrent paths of execution. Then, the target activity has an boolean expression as a function of the arriving links. The activity will only be executed if the link expression resolves to true. But Alex will know better. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982908#3982908 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982908

18 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Web Content - Who is working on what?

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : How is the Email portion of the jbpm code coming along? that is done for some time now. we are trying to wrap up this next 3.2 release asap so that people can actually start using it. you can already play with it if you download the 3.2.Alpha1. That also contains a docs chapter about it, so you can already get an impression of what we did. feedback on this is most welcome ! thanks. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982900#3982900 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982900

18 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Web console enhancements

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

with a recent update, i saw that david added new dependencies that could match that description. did you already do a get.dependencies ? if that doesn't help, we'll have to wait for david to comment. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982899#3982899 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982899

18 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Web Content - Who is working on what?

by kukeltje

use jsf rabiobutton components, so learn jsf. It's real simple View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982898#3982898 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982898

18 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: a jms message sending node type

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

brittm, i like your idea of a presenting the user with code meant for extensions. we could do it in the wiki or in the sources and call it the 'steal-away' or 'cherry-pick' pages. in those pages we would provide the action handler implementation for sending a message (and e.g. actionhandlers for all sorts of other things). users can then take this code and use it as a basis for their own implementation. what do you think, jeff ? would that also cover your requirements or do you still think that a configurable jms node would be better ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982897#3982897 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982897

18 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - jms based messaging and server side transactions

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

the asynchronous continuations are now working on HEAD based on JMS in an EJB environment with CMT. For getting the server side transactions to work properly, i had to add a configuration property to the DbPersistenceServiceFactory: isCurrentSessionEnabled This property tells the DbPersistenceService to use the sessionFactory.getCurrentSession(), rather then creating and closing a hibernate session. Now i'm going to focus on binding the jbpm scheduler service to the ejb timer service. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982882#3982882 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982882

18 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Clustering tests and hsqldb

by timfox

We could certainly use a different embedded database than HSQL for those tests that only require an embedded database. However some of the tests, e.g. some of the clustering tests require a shared database that can be seen by all nodes in the cluster. My point was, basically we should make the default test database a shared database, e.g. mysql so we can run the entire test suite. When the tests are run against an embedded database, e.g. javadb, hsql or whatever not all the tests can be run which is not ideal. Eventually this will be solved by running all tests against the full database matrix (Ryan told me we are on the waiting list for this after hibernate and jbpm) but until then I wanted a stop-gap solution. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982876#3982876 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982876

18 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossCache] - Possible optimization of CachedSetImpl

by genman

I was thinking that, instead of using a simple integer tag for each POJO in a Set, that you could incorporate the hash code (or part of it) along with a counter for objects that happened to have the same hash code, but not equal. For example, the Set.contains() method could be written as: | public boolean contains(Object o) | { | int hash = o.hashCode(); | Collection<Object> children = node.getChildrenNames(); | for (int i = 0; i < children.size(); i++) { | Long key = new Long((long)hash | ((long)i << 32)); | Object o2 = ...get(key); | if (o2 == null) | return false; | if (o.equals(o2)) | return true; | } | return false; | } | Worst-case performance is O(N), best is O(1). Set.remove() would mean more complication; you'd have to actually shift entries around to fix gaps, if there were any. I could contribute this as a patch if it made sense. One thing I wonder though is, does it hurt to use Integer in an FQN instead of a String? I didn't see any problems during tests... Long.toString() would be fine I guess but less efficient. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3982872#3982872 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3982872

18 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums November 2006