November 2008 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by estaub

"thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : anonymous wrote : | | Otoh, it makes it kind of clear that it is *not* a definition. | | | | The distinction to ProcessDefinition is still there. | FWIW (bikeshed) - in my experience with business-analysts and other non-Java-heads, people informally use the term "Process" to refer to a Definition more often than they use it to refer to an Instance. When we talk about, say, "designing a business process", we're clearly talking about a definition, not an instance. This is an odd case where English has a word for the definition, but not for instances of that definition. So "Process" doesn't obviously mean "Process Instance". -Ed Staub View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190181#4190181 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190181

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-385 - Privileged actions for GenericBeanFact

by adrian＠jboss.org

"alesj" wrote : | Unless Scott can prove that Diesler was twisting his arm, | there is no excuse for putting this in. :-) | The correct fix is store this on whatever is really a singleton in your code, e.g. the webserver or something representing the ejb subsystem, etc. Then later when you realise its not really a singleton (e.g. two webservers in the same JVM) there's only your project that has to unwind the braindeath. ;-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190179#4190179 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190179

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

i replied on the mailing list instead of the forum: anonymous wrote : The scope of jBPM 3 work is already way beyond the resources we have for it. We should focus on the necessary work to put jBPM 3 in maintenance rather then introducing a new API on it. | | We said in the meeting in the context of the migration debate that no API will be introduced in jBPM 3. A new API will be introduced in jBPM 4. | Apart from that, using the term process to indicate a process instance would be highly confusing. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190173#4190173 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190173

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-385 - Privileged actions for GenericBeanFact

by alesj

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | Speaking of "locating", who is using the horrible KernelLocator | that has sneaked into the MC project despite all my explanations | about this being the wrong way to do it? | | Basically, there never has been a singleton kernel in the MC (or the old JMX kernel | for that matter - although there we hacked it with the locateJBoss() method). | | Having a class trying to emulate it, is bound to break | when somebody does create more than one. I'll give you zero attempts to guess. ;-) Unless Scott can prove that Diesler was twisting his arm, there is no excuse for putting this in. :-) | * @author Scott.Stark(a)jboss.org | * @version $Revision:$ | */ | public class KernelLocator implements KernelControllerContextAware | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190171#4190171 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190171

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-385 - Privileged actions for GenericBeanFact

by adrian＠jboss.org

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | Having a class trying to emulate it, is bound to break | when somebody does create more than one. Its also a security issue since there's no control on who can set the singleton, only on who can access it. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190170#4190170 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190170

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

Please also note, that both Process and ProcessDefinition share common functionality from ProcessStructure http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpm-spec/jbpm-spec-api/apidocs/org/jbpm/api/model... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190168#4190168 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190168

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-385 - Privileged actions for GenericBeanFact (Repost)

by adrian＠jboss.org

"alesj" wrote : "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | | We might want to create an interface for this contract since it is not good | | that the GBF depends upon a particular implementation of the KernelControllerContext | | interface? | Probably doesn't belong to KCC, | more like our InvokeDispatchContext? | | What would be a good name? :-) | Don't really care about names, except when they obviously wrong.... anonymous wrote : | Considering probable future usages/additions. | e.g. AccessControlContextAware? "Aware" is usually for when you want a callback, e.g. if the controller was going to do a setAccessControlContext() Like having a bean that is KernelControllerContextAware meaning there is a setKernelControllerContext(). Since this is just a getter interface, why not call it something like ControllerContextAccessControlContextProvider? Its a mouthful so you can probably shorten it? ;-) Provider is the usual name if something is not building, generating, loading, locating, etc. Speaking of "locating", who is using the horrible KernelLocator that has sneaked into the MC project despite all my explanations about this being the wrong way to do it? Basically, there never has been a singleton kernel in the MC (or the old JMX kernel for that matter - although there we hacked it with the locateJBoss() method). Having a class trying to emulate it, is bound to break when somebody does create more than one. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190164#4190164 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190164

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : | Otoh, it makes it kind of clear that it is *not* a definition. | The distinction to ProcessDefinition is still there. The API would have ProcessDefinition http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpm-spec/jbpm-spec-api/apidocs/org/jbpm/api/model... and Process http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpm-spec/jbpm-spec-api/apidocs/org/jbpm/api/model... anonymous wrote : | What about the relation between processes and subprocesses? Are those only visible via the definition? | They would be visible on both the ProcessDefinition and the Process. The ProcessDefinition is the immutable instance that defines the structure. The Process is the runtime copy of that structure that is mutable to some degree. (i.e. to associate state with individual Node instances) A running Sub-Process would probably be a reference to a Process, but this definitely needs to be revisited when we come to the point when Sub-Processes appear on the API roadmap, which should be early next year. Thanks for your feedback View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190165#4190165 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190165

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-385 - Privileged actions for GenericBeanFact

by adrian＠jboss.org

"alesj" wrote : "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | | We might want to create an interface for this contract since it is not good | | that the GBF depends upon a particular implementation of the KernelControllerContext | | interface? | Probably doesn't belong to KCC, | more like our InvokeDispatchContext? | | What would be a good name? :-) | Don't really care about names, except when they obviously wrong.... [quote Considering probable future usages/additions. e.g. AccessControlContextAware? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190164#4190164 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190164

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-385 - Privileged actions for GenericBeanFact

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : | Only reference I see is an embedded comment in the VFSPermissions thread | by Anil saying that he is no expert on AOP so he'll create a blocker issue for me | to investigate the problem. I just created an issue. Assigning priority to the JIRA issue is Ales' job. ;) There is an api (createBean) and an attempt to get the CL (from mc). So looking from the stack trace, I evaluated that the MC should be doing a priv op of the CL. The expectation from mc api for AOP is to create a bean. To make that happen, is the mc's api (createBean) job. You can either force all users of the mc api to have the getCL permission or have it internally. The mc designers have to tell us. :) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190161#4190161 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190161

17 years, 4 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 November 2008