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

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: task node implementation

by kukeltje

I agree with David and as I read it correctly, Tom favors the first solution as well View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4031996#4031996 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4031996

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: spaces versus tabs

by kukeltje

funny, I was going to opt for 3.... really I was, no joking....but for the same reason as david. 2 is to little. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4031995#4031995 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4031995

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: task node implementation

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : In the first approach, we could just add Task to the pvm package. Process languages should have the ability to ignore that member field. I like this approach best. If users don't want to use tasks, they can just ignore the property with no harmful effects. This is better than going back to a modular system in my opinion, and for users who do want tasks in their process language, it will be far easier on them. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4031989#4031989 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4031989

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: spaces versus tabs

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : i'm not a code style fanatic, but it would be nice if we all could use | - spaces instead of tabs | Definitely. "tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : - indentation of 2 spaces Hm, well I really prefer 4 spaces because with 2 spaces I sometimes have a hard time reading the code. That said, in all cases when I've worked on the current CVS trunk I've used 2 spaces to be consistent with the existing style. But for things that are initially created by myself I've been doing 4 spaces, like jbpm4jsf for example. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4031985#4031985 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4031985

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - task node implementation

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

i'm thinking about the implementation of the task node. i see 3 options implement how the created task gets inserted into the the database. any comments are appreciated. In the first approach, we could just add Task to the pvm package. Process languages should have the ability to ignore that member field. This violates a little bit the language pluggability in the sense that processes that don't use it will have the tasks property. But on the other hand, if we decouple everything, the simple things become quite complex (also for the user) as you can see in the other alternatives below. public void execute(Execution execution) throws Exception { | Task task = createTask(execution); | | execution.addTask(task); | In this second approach, we could have a task repository in the context. Pretty modular, but the user is confronted with the task repository in his configuration files. The service could keep track of all the created tasks and inserts them in the db. public void execute(Execution execution) throws Exception { | Task task = createTask(execution); | | TaskRepository taskRepository = (TaskRepository) execution.getContext().find("taskRepository"); | taskRepository.addTask(task); | // OR // Assume the execution implements a kind of TaskExecution interface. In that case, the process languages that want to make use of tasks, can make sure that their Execution will implement that interface. The concrete execution class can have a member field called tasks that will be persisted with JPA in cascading mode. One of the advantages here is that in testing, you don't require a context to be set up. public void execute(Execution execution) throws Exception { | Task task = createTask(execution); | | if (! (execution instanceof TaskExecution)) { | throw new JbpmException("couldn't add task because execution doesn't implement TaskExecution"); | } | TaskExecution taskExecution = (TaskExecution) execution; | taskExecution.addTask(task); | a last approach might be to have a kind of generic extensions mechanism in the execution (just like we have the modules now with ModuleInstance). It could be a hashmap that stores any runtime information keyed by name. public void execute(Execution execution) throws Exception { | Task task = createTask(execution); | | TaskExtension taskExtension = (TaskExtension)execution.getExtension(Task.EXTENSIONKEY_TASK); | taskExtension.addTask(task); | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4031971#4031971 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4031971

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: spaces versus tabs

by camunda

I think every formatting is quite fine, so 2 spaces indent is perfect. What would be good is, if you just export your Eclipse formatting settings in a XML (Eclipse can do that) and check that in CVS or at least make it available in the Wiki. So everybody working on jBPm can import these settings and formats well. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4031962#4031962 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4031962

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - spaces versus tabs

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

i'm not a code style fanatic, but it would be nice if we all could use - spaces instead of tabs - indentation of 2 spaces or at least that is my proposal. let me know if you think different and wether or not it is a religious matter for you :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4031939#4031939 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4031939

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Deployers on JBoss (Deployers/JBoss)] - org.jboss.util.FileProtocolArchiveBrowserFactory

by dimitris＠jboss.org

http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBCOMMON-19 As part of porting Scott's fixes for http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBAS-3866 into common-1.x, I found out the org.jboss.util.FileProtocolArchiveBrowserFactory had also problem dealing with paths containing spaces, so I fixed that in both common-1.x and common-2.x I got rid of the file->URI->file logic, it just seemed reduntant to me. JBoss 4.2.x now boots from a path containing spaces. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4031938#4031938 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4031938

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - update and remove methods in the process definition classes

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

i'm wondering wether we need the update and remove methods in the process definition classes. especially i'm talking about the bidirectional relations code. i start to think they are not necessary because the only use case for building a process graph is when the process xml is parsed. so in the process parser, you will not manipulate the process object model, but instead just create it. do you see other use cases for the process definition model then building it from xml ? do you see necessity to have the update and remove methods ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4031935#4031935 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4031935

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Clustering on JBoss (Clusters/JBoss)] - Re: HASingleton and partition merges

by galder.zamarreno＠jboss.com

"bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : +1 on this for 4.2 and later +1 "bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : , but would you advocate that for a CP? As there's no way of knowing what people have deployed in deploy-hasingleton, I don't think having it change behavior in a CP is good. I agree with Brian regarding a possible change of behavior in the CP, off by default in this case. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4031907#4031907 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4031907

18 years, 11 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 March 2007