[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: splitting the work on the console
by david.lloyd@jboss.com
David, it is my hope to design the new webapp in such a way that not only will existing ideas can be consolidated, but that new ideas can be integrated at the same time. I know it has been frustrating, and I'm afraid there will be a little bit more of a wait yet as I am still trying to get my feet on the ground as far as what we can do vs what we should do. This will take me a bit of time and I can only ask that you be patient with me as I consolodate these ideas. I've stated previously that I am going to attempt to get these requirements all together, while I'm working on exploring the capabilities of the core system.
That said, please feel free to post any ideas/thoughts/brainstorming on what you'd like to see within the new webapp, in this thread or in another if you feel that the discussion warrants a separate thread.
Thanks.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3966196#3966196
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3966196
19 years, 7 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: splitting the work on the console
by falazar
David,
So, an initial question here, getting started with the whole JSF (have to get book next week)
I got a basic loop going here:
| <c:forEach var="processDefinition" items="#{participantBean.allProcessDefinitions}">
| <tr class="normal" onmouseover="this.className='hovered';" onmouseout="this.className='normal';" onclick="document.all['newExe#{processDefinition.id}\'].click()">
| <td class="selectable"><h:outputText value="#{processDefinition.name}" /> (<h:outputText value="#{processDefinition.id}" />) </td>
| <td class="selectable"><h:outputText value="#{processDefinition.version}" /></td>
| <td class="selectable"><h:outputText value="#{participantBean.allProcessInstances(***PID HERE***)}" /> </td>
| <td class="selectable">
| <h:commandLink action="#{participantBean.startNewProcessInstance}" id="newExe#{processDefinition.id}">
| <f:param name="processDefinitionId" value="#{processDefinition.id}"/>
| Start It!
| </h:commandLink>
| </td>
| </tr>
| </c:forEach>
|
This all works fine, shows all processdefinitions, and version and ID's fine.
So then in the loop, I would like to call out and get all the processInstances for each of these... And that doesnt seem to be working in any way I can do it.
I dont see how to pass a variable back into the function.
The function call itself should be fine:
|
| // hmm count all active processes instead?
| // first get count of all processes here, then try it in the webpage, then return list if needed
| //public int getAllProcessInstances(long processDefinitionId)
| public String getAllProcessInstances()
| {
| //return "12";
| System.out.println("PID:"+processDefinitionId);
| return Integer.toString(jbpmBean.getJbpmContext().getGraphSession().findProcessInstances(processDefinitionId).size());
| }
|
Thanks,
James
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3966186#3966186
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3966186
19 years, 7 months
[Design of JBoss Build System] - Enabling Cross Version Testing in JBossAS
by ryan.campbell@jboss.com
We need to test various components inside of legacy releases of JBossAS, like JBossCache, JBossWS, etc. Right now, this involves either modifying the build-thirdparty.xml to update the version, or replacing the binaries ?by hand.?
I?d like to be able to override a version using a property, so that I can do something like this:
./build.sh ?propfile myversion.properties most
where myversion.properties is:
jgroups.version=2.2.9.1
jboss/cache.version=1.4.0.SP1
The solution is to externalize the versions from the current build-thirdparty.xml so that instead of:
You would have:
| <componentref name="jboss/cache"
| version="${jboss/cache.version}" />
|
and a thirdparty-versions.properties which would have a bunch of:
jboss/cache.version=1.2.3.1
This is the most natural solution and it would be functionally equivalent to the one we have today.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3966141#3966141
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3966141
19 years, 7 months