[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jbpm4jsf java 5 dependency
by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com
I'm pretty sure that there are people and customers that are still running on 1.4.2. maybe not much. but those will be screwed if they simply want to upgrade from jPDL 3.2.GA to 3.2.1. This would backfire if we upgrade JDK requirements or JBoss version between micro releases.
For 3.3, it's a whole other discussion. that is where I'm very open to discuss this.
Similar for jboss versions. Currently we build with 4.0.4.GA. I don't mind switching to 4.0.5. But i would mind switching to 4.2.0.
I'm talking about the suite distribution here. What we can do is add more packages in the deploy directory. There we can put packages that you can deploy in other environments then the one we selected for the out-of-the-box experience.
Also I think it's good if the project can handle many versions. But we already had a hard time setting up the simple integration test build. I think it would be a lot of effort to upgrade that integration test build for the matrix of jdk's and jbosses. Our current team would not be able to handle the extra load resulting from that. We need to focus on 1 set of dependencies. If we can handle variations, the better. But I don't want the team to be too much distracted from the resulting complexity of such a matrix.
We better focus first on getting the integration tests running on multiple databases.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4054211#4054211
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4054211
18 years, 9 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: process patch files
by camunda
anonymous wrote : 2) If a business looses track of a PAR project for whatever reason (company is acquired, IT is restructured, developers leave, data loss, etc.), and jBPM can't hand back the par file for rebuilding, then patching is the only option other than rewriting the process.
Sounds more and more scary to me ;-)
anonymous wrote : We already do it (successfully) by directly manipulating the database--sometimes through screens developed for that pupose. (Unfortunately, the 10 or so departments that we serve can't seem to come up with all their real requirements until they start using the system in production. And I suppose we have had one or two *ahem* mistakes on our part.)
I now this very good, we have the same problem in most of the projects. But we can solve that with new process versioning and the ChangeProcessInstanceVersionCommand quite well. Of course a new process version has overhead (for testing and qa), but I think that is worth the effort...
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4054195#4054195
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4054195
18 years, 9 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Thinking about transition attrs
by kukeltje
"brittm" wrote : Namespaces seems like a good idea *if* jBPM could throw that part of the configuration into 'external config' tables with a foreign key to the jpdl parent element. I wouldn't care if the configuration were simply stored as a string--at least it would be trivial to retrieve in relation to the appropriate jpdl element. We're already doing this kind of thing with ActionHandler configuration.
Why the need for it to be in tables? Nodenames are unique, If you have the processdefinition in a dom, you van easily use an xpath statement to get to specific attributes of a specific node... no need to store it in a db. Just make sure in the processdefinition object that is in the hibernate cache, there also is a cached dom version of it... This could be implemented now without any changes to databases or whatever.
anonymous wrote : Of course, we could do the same thing with a generic "meta" tag on the key jpdl elements.
I hate 'generic' tags. They quickly become meaningless.
"brittm" wrote :
| One advantage to this approach could be that if we see people using this functionality to carry the same types of configuration over and over, then that usage could be a candidate for standardizing in the jpdl.
Would we see people using it? Would they give feedback on how they use it? I doubt it.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4054154#4054154
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4054154
18 years, 9 months