Haven't really thought about this, but I'd figure a cache built up by the microcontainer (or any DI framework) would be untyped (i.e. not Cache<Object, Object> but just plain old Cache). You can't cast it to Cache<Object, Object>, so thereafter any calls against the DI-injected cache will give you those lovely compiler warnings.
Not the end of the world, but wanted to point it out as a consideration.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4028372#4028372
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4028372
At the moment the lifecycle callbacks are driven by KernelControllerContextAction. I could move this into the AbstractControllerContext.install() and uninstall() methods. That should make it available to all types of contexts? Assuming that they extend AbstractControllerContext of course.
The main problem with this is that the lifecycle metadata stuff lives in BeanMetaData which is in the kernel project and so is not visible from the AbstractControllerContext. If I have understood you correctly, this would then need to be moved out or changed into something else that is usable by AbstractControllerContext?
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4028361#4028361
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4028361
Declaring a cache as containing <Object, Object> or even leaving it untyped will be, at worst, what we had before - a generic object cache containing anything at all.
This just gives users flexibility if they do have a homogenous cache, or even a "partly-homogenous" one (for example, where key types are fixed to Strings but values can be anything) or where you want to restrict value types (e.g., Serializable)
Moving forward, once we break down the cache into discrete regions (JBCACHE-64) with their own configurations, we could specify types on a per-region basis.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4028350#4028350
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4028350
Hello,
we are evaluating jbpm as workflow engine and we need to know whether there is a way in jbpm to pass document (such as word document, zip files, etc.) between tasks instead of simple variables. That is each actor in the process should be able to download and upload files.
Please give us any information that might be useful cause we need to come to an answer within a couple days.
Thank you.
PS: I posted a similar question in the user support forum. I apologize for the crosspost.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4028312#4028312
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4028312