January 2007 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: one central search page

by jeffdelong

I think there should be two search pages: one to support process management (processdefinitions and processInstances), one one to support task management (for taskInstances). ProcessInstances: search criteria to include processdefinition, start date, status /state (i.e., active, completed, suspended) TasksInstance: search criteria to include taskname, create date, start date, end date, status / state, processinstance, actorId, pooledActorId Having said this I again raise the concern about performance. Is the database schema and gui architecture able to handle these types of queries when there are 20,000 processInstances and 100,000 taskInstances in the db, and the query results in 2000 hits? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3999057#3999057 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3999057

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: new simplified menu structure

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

"bazoo" wrote : Instead of "End Task", I would suggest "Proceed", to reinforce the idea that the user is moving through a process. The "End Task" is not terminology that is defined by the web console. The caption of each of the transition buttons is determined by the name of the corresponding transition. In this case, the "websale" example process happens to have transitions named "End Task". To demonstrate this, you can run the websale process to this point in its execution, and go to the process instance view. From here go to the Tokens tab and choose to signal the token that is waiting on that task. You will see a listing of all the possible transitions. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3999054#3999054 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3999054

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: user based process versioning ?

by brittm

Being able to normalize two Process Definitions could be a nice feature, but it also looks to me like a whole lot of trouble. Also, it seems more like a developer's "Oops, I didn't record what I was doing, so now I don't know what I have," kind of feature, rather than a solid business function. I do think that carrying a settable version number in addition to the current incremented one could be a good idea--sort of like the difference between a business key and a primary key. This way the developer could specify a version number that could be kept in sync with CVS and other deployables. -Britt View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3999053#3999053 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3999053

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: simplified process instance view

by kukeltje

hmmmm won't this screen be cluttered with info? You know, all tasks have had their own variables, comments etc... or just the processlevel comments (where do we enter those?) and processlevel variables? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3999052#3999052 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3999052

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: direct navigation when starting a new process instance

by kukeltje

Sounds reasnoable, but I think in most cases there will be one task, so we should focus on that situation. The other usecases could be done at a later moment... (imo) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3999051#3999051 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3999051

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: new simplified menu structure

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : Processes : Should display a list of processes similar to the current Find Processes menu screen. By default, this screen shows only the latest versions of the processes in alphabetical order. For the new prototype, there should be two tables for Processes. One table should have a row for each unique process name, and it should contain any information that is shared between all versions of a process (even if it is just the name). The other will be a child table of the main Process table and should contain per-version information. The main process table should have link to the Process Version table representing the current "active" version. This way, the latest version of a process can be found without having to using grouping SQL operations, and also the user can easily revert to an earlier version of a process if they need to by changing a simple link. This normalization will greatly simplify the querying of process information. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3999050#3999050 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3999050

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBossCache] - Re: PojoCache uses a special node factory

by bstansberry＠jboss.com

"manik.surtani(a)jboss.com" wrote : | This possibility always was there, even the way the NodeFactory was used before - and still is in JBC 1.x.y - as a Singleton. That's the whole purpose of a factory. I'm not sure how it can be done in 1.x, as NodeFactory doesn't expose any way to change the singleton. anonymous wrote : The first step would be to identify how a _JBossInternal_ node would differ from normal nodes, wrt. concurrency with optimistic and pessimistic locking, data versioning and BR as well. Yep. Assuming Ben finds the concept useful :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3999048#3999048 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3999048

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: one central search page

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

The problems I see with this are as follows: * Having one single set of search criteria is more complicated than having separate searches. Initially I did do this. I tried to simplify it by having a select list where you'd select the type of search you wanted to do, and it would update the search criteria for the new search type, but this was much more complicated than the final search mechanism that i ended up with. By complicated, I mean complicated to implement AND confusing for the end-user. * We will need to keep track of where the user came from so they can easily return. Again this is doable in a couple of ways, but I think an overriding priority is bookmarkable URLs for pages, and this might compromise that. A bookmarkable URL implies statelessness, which would be complicated if we must track where a user navigated from at run time. For example, if I went from the Process page to find Process Instances, I'd want a link back to that process page to be right at the top. But if I bookmarked that URL, now that URL should contain something that indicates that you navigated to that search results page from the Process page. I think having a single search page is too confusing, unless you have an idea for how it can be laid out. We could however do (for example) one search page per result type, or use tabs to separate searches. The latter is tougher (but possible) to bookmark though. * View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3999047#3999047 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3999047

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss Web Services] - Re: JBWS-1260 - Sequence containing 2 elements

by jason.greene＠jboss.com

Right, a simple type is not a valid wrapper type, so if it is used only the bare parameter style can be used. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3999045#3999045 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3999045

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Aspect integration to bootstrap classes

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

I am looking at moving the AOP into bootstrap-beans.xml, I will allow for some "initial" XML to be passed in to the aspectmanager bean, which should make possible | <aspect name="mainDeployer" | class="org.jboss.profileservice.aop.MainDeployerAdvice"/> | <bind pointcut="execution(* | $instanceof{org.jboss.deployers.spi.deployment.MainDeployer}->process(..))"> | <advice name="process" aspect="mainDeployer"/> | </bind> | However, since AFAICT ManagedProperty is not a bean, in order to be able to do: | <aspect name="persist" | class="org.jboss.profileservice.aop.PersistAdvice"/> | <bind pointcut="execution(* | $instanceof{org.jboss.deployers.spi.deployment.MainDeployer}->process(..))"> | <advice name="process" aspect="mainDeployer"/> | </bind> | We have the following choices: 1) Require jboss to be run with a custom loader for loadtime weaving to be enabled, which might be overkill? 2) Weave/Prepare ManagedProperty at compiletime, so that it has the AOP hooks in place, and pick up the aspects to be applied to these joinpoints at runtime from the "initial" xml View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3999037#3999037 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3999037

19 years, 3 months

1
0
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums January 2007