[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: iCalendar wrapper
by aapthorp
anonymous wrote : Personally, I'd wonder if DTSTART, LOCATION, PERCENT and CLASS can be left out for now.
I agree that these may not be immediate requirements, but wonder if there are some missing requirements here...or some not so obvious mappings. For my purposes I used task variables for DTSTART and LOCATION.
anonymous wrote : The task variables should be as easily readable as possible, so I'd not go for X- properties. Putting them in the description would also not be my favourite, so that leaves the ATTACH option or leave them out completely (at first).
I need to look a bit further at the possibilities of ATTACH, for readonly purposes I formatted them into the description.
anonymous wrote : Additionally, I'd include a link somewhere that directly opens the task form page. For me that would be a near-perfect first release.
Yes, already done.
anonymous wrote : A XUL based ui could be nice, but why not just use the /a webbased page for updating?
That's certainly the short term approach, but what I'm thinking about here are the possibilities of providing task specific extensions to PIM type tools for both off-line and on-line useage. Or to put it another way how far does the iCalendar set of RFCs go to provide a standard Human Task protocol? Having just come across WS-HumanTask buried alongside BPEL4People I need to see how close the two compare...
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4139852#4139852
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4139852
16 years
[Design of JBoss Build System] - Re: Maven Version ranges - Snapshots during development
by adrian@jboss.org
Another problem is that you can't use:
mvn dependency:purge-local-repository -DreResolve=false
to zap your dependencies from the local repository when there are version ranges
in the pom.
It simply doesn't understand the version ranges. Running it with -Dverbose=true
just gives an non-descript "error message"
| [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| [INFO] Building Project2
| [INFO] task-segment: [dependency:purge-local-repository] (aggregator-style)
| [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| [INFO] [dependency:purge-local-repository]
| [INFO] Skipping: project2. It cannot be resolved.
| [INFO] Nothing to do for project: test:project2:jar:1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
| [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| [INFO] BUILD SUCCESSFUL
| [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
It doesn't even zap the dependencies that aren't version ranges.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4139848#4139848
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4139848
16 years
[Design of JBoss Build System] - Re: Move dependency management back into app server svn stru
by ALRubinger
"dimitris(a)jboss.org" wrote : Having the AS pom.xml essentially outside the project.
That's much different than "the component-matrix pom is a bad idea". :)
----
Though I don't much care where component-matrix lives, we've got conflicting views on the topic of what constitutes a circular dependency.
"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : If you depend upon a jbossas sub-project then you are doing it wrong. Circular dependency anyone? :-)
I don't agree with the above statement. The Thread at http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=132229 explains this more fully. In short, the dependency chain can be "AS Assembly > EJB3 > AS Component" just fine.
However, if Adrian's comment is true, then moving the component-matrix POM under jbossas/trunk means we cannot depend on it, which defeats its purpose in the first place.
----
"dimitris(a)jboss.org" wrote : 1) Your mission is to deliver a working EJB3 implementation, not screw up the AS build.
We've outgrown the current layout of JBossAS. EJB3, webservices, (messaging?), and any future projects need to take advantage of the same libraries/projects that AS does. JBossAS cannot lay claim to exclusive control of these projects.
We need to discuss and come to agreement on the direction in which we're heading by identifying the requisite use cases for both AS and AS Component Consumers.
Let's try to give that some attention this week.
S,
ALR
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4139838#4139838
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4139838
16 years