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

[Design of AOP on JBoss (Aspects/JBoss)] - Re: Reimplementing ClassPools for AS

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

Adrian/Ales, I've had a look at http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=130122, but it is not clear to me what the difference is between ModuleRequirement and PackageRequirement? Does a module represent a jar, thus meaning import everything from that jar? And is package more fine-grained, meaning only import these packages from that jar? Whatever the answer, I suppose the Module/Package difference would also apply to the capabilities? Also, what is UsesPackageRequirement? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195156#4195156 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195156

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: task component interface comments

by camunda

Why so complicated? The setter with a return value doesn't break anything if you don't use the return value! Why stick to conventions without benefit and introducing additonal components to come around with it? I would vote for the setXXX with returning the object approach proposed by Tom... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195138#4195138 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195138

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: task component interface comments

by alex.guizar＠jboss.com

Creating tasks without a user-provided ID is a must for usability. The generated ID will be the database ID converted to string. As for task creation, I concur with Joram that (ab-)using the setters for a fluent interface goes against the JavaBeans design principles. Introducing a set of methods called withXXX to the Task interface is also a no-go because they mostly duplicate the setXXX methods. I propose introducing a TaskBuilder buildTask() method to the TaskService, and move the withXXX methods to TaskBuilder. Actually I'd prefer to drop the "with" prefix, as follows. Task task = taskService.buildTask() | .name("test") | .dueDate(today) | .asignee(me) | .done(); TaskBuilder does not even have to be an interface, because it simply delegates to methods in the Task interface. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195136#4195136 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195136

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Creatiing new pooled actors for every task instance

by stringaling

Hi, I have noticed that for every new task instance that contains an assignment to a pooled-actor within a process, there are new entries added to the jbpm_pooledactor table. This behavior is a wee bit undesirable, as we end up creating a rapidly growing large table with very redundant records. The table contains a 'VERSION_' field which would seem to indicate that at least some thought might have been put into doing this differently. Is there any plans to work on assignment in upcoming releases ? Or is this just how it is going to work for a while ? Example of my assignment: | <task name="Manual Address Review"> | <assignment pooled-actors="WD User"/> | </task> | (The same behavior exists with swimlanes) The source of my concern is trying to improve performance when getting a task list for when there are a large number of outstanding tasks. The number of joins required to do this is expensive, and could possible be reduced if there was a consistent ID for pooled actors in the JBPM_POOLEDACTOR table. (Couldn't these assignments, actors be determined and setup at the time of process deployment, rather then as part of creating a task instance ?) Thanks, David Stringer (Jboss 4.0.5, Jbpm 3.2.2, Java 1.6, Oracle 10g) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195127#4195127 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195127

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Remaing classLoader changes

by kabir.khan＠jboss.com

Adrian/Ales, I've had a look at http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=130122, but it is not clear to me what the difference is between ModuleRequirement and PackageRequirement? Does a module represent a jar, thus meaning import everything from that jar? And is package more fine-grained, meaning only import these packages from that jar? Whatever the answer, I suppose the Module/Package difference would also apply to the capabilities? Also, what is UsesPackageRequirement? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195109#4195109 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195109

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Wise client

by blublinsky

It looks like wise client is generating all of the supporting classes in a single (it.javalinux.wise) namespace. As a result, if I have same types in different namespaces, it causes problems in generation. What should I do if I can not change existing WSDL files? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195101#4195101 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195101

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: task component interface comments

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

good idea, but i still like the setters more. as the setters can also be used in the normal way: Task task = taskService.newTask(); | task.setName(); | task.setDueDate(someDay); | task.setAssignee("johndoe"); | task.save(); that would be harder with the 'withXxx' methods View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195094#4195094 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195094

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - EJBTHREE-1607 Update EJB3.0 Tutorials

by jaikiran

I have been updating the EJB3 tutorials and have committed the "stateless" tutorial at https://svn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/ejb3/trunk/docs/tutorial/sta... The plan is to allow the users to run these tutorials either through Ant or through Maven. For this "stateless" tutorial, the instructions to run the tutorial are at https://svn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/ejb3/trunk/docs/tutorial/sta.... The steps are going be the same for rest of the tutorials (ex: "stateful"). Ant build: The Ant build for each tutorial consists of targets, which create a jar file and copy(deploy) it to the JBossAS deploy folder. There is an additional target "run" which the user can then use to run the standalone EJB client. So its a 2 step process for the user: | $ ant | $ ant run | Maven build: The Maven support for the tutorials is new. During the "package" phase the generated artifact (jboss-ejb3-tutorial-stateless.jar) is copied to the deploy folder of JBoss. Then during the "install" phase, the standalone client is run. So the user will do: $ mvn clean install The pom for this has been checked in for reference r82111 Note that, both in the Ant and the Maven approach, we expect the user to manually start the server. Carlo mentioned to me that, we should be able to start the server from within the top-level pom https://svn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/ejb3/trunk/docs/tutorial/pom... so that these tutorials can be included into Hudson builds. Andrew, I heard that we already have some similar stuff for starting the server through Maven. Could you please point me to that? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195082#4195082 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195082

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Register EventListener on JbppmContext

by camunda

Okay, wrote some lines about what we did now here: http://www.bpm-guide.de/2008/12/06/easily-generate-bam-events-wih-jbpm/. Sorry for not giving more details,to limited time... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195076#4195076 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195076

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: task component interface comments

by jbarrez

I don't think it is a real 'problem', but my for my feeling it seems wrong. Isn't this 'more clean': taskService.newTask() .withName("TestTask") .withDueDate(someDay) .withActor("Joram"); This way you can have the fluent interface (which I agree is nice to have) and the setters. Downside is that that withXXX() methods are almost the same as the setters. Ofc, this is just my opinion, perhaps I'm completely wrong on this one. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195061#4195061 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195061

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 December 2008