May 2009 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Enforce transition names?

by heiko.braun＠jboss.com

I've realized that Transition.getName() can be null. Even though the designer creates transition names, manually created process definitions may not contain transition names. The only case where you can signal without a transition name is activities w. a single out transition. Shouldn't the names be enforced? Or at least be created by the engine at deploy time, when no names a re provided? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4228912#4228912 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4228912

15 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: XSL and other transformation engines

by tfennelly

A specialized action for transforming CSV directly to a List/Map of objects of a specific type. This is supported in Smooks v1.2, but we could create a specialized ESB action that hides the underlying details of Smooks. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4228908#4228908 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4228908

15 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Task completion without outcome?

by heiko.braun＠jboss.com

I would expect TaskService.complete(taskId) to do one of the following: a) single out transition: use it b) multiple out transitions: use default if given c) multiple out transitions: throw error if no default given View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4228907#4228907 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4228907

15 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Task completion without outcome?

by heiko.braun＠jboss.com

Invoking TaskService.complete(taskId) leads to an error like this: | org.jbpm.api.JbpmException: task outcome 'null' doesn't match with the an outgoing transition [(request_vacation)--to grant_vacation-->(verify_request)] | | How should task with only a single outcome (aka single outgoing transition) be completed? View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4228906#4228906 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4228906

15 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: XSL and other transformation engines

by beve

anonymous wrote : Another option we could consider might be a FreeMarker Action which allows people to easily utilise FreeMarker's NodeModel functionality for processing XML. I think many people would prefer this as a templating solution, as an alternative to XSL. Yeah, I think a FreeMarker action would be really nice to have. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4228905#4228905 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4228905

15 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: EJBTHREE-1800 Current status on performance improvement

by jaikiran

"jaikiran" wrote : | | 1) ... (/reinitialization) | | During EJB3Deployment processing, we have this piece of code: | List<Container> containers = handler.getContainers(cf, this); | for (Container con : containers) | { | // EJBContainer has finished with all metadata initialization from XML files and such. | // this is really a hook to do some processing after XML has been set up and before | // and processing of dependencies and such. | try | { | ((EJBContainer) con).instantiated(); | | handler.getContainers returns the correct container and also internally initializes all the AOP related stuff for the BeanContainer. After all this initialization is done, the next line we do this: | ((EJBContainer) con).instantiated(); | which internally does: | public void instantiated() | { | this.businessInterfaces = resolveBusinessInterfaces(); | | // Before we start to process annotations, make sure we also have the ones from interceptors-aop. | // FIXME: because of the flaked life cycle of an EJBContainer (we add annotations after it's been | // constructed), we must reinitialize the whole thing. | beanContainer.reinitializeAdvisor(); | | } | Does the comments still hold good? Because, i don't see anything in the code (between those 2 lines) which neccessitates the reinitialization. The re-initializing causes all of the (time consuming) AOP stuff to be done again. Am i missing something? Can we remove the reinitialization part? (I am going to start a testsuite run with this change to see if it affects any functionality, but wanted to have other inputs). View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4228895#4228895 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4228895

15 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: XSL and other transformation engines

by tfennelly

Yeah... I think an XSL Action would be a very useful addition. I think the impl should support multiple Source types, defaulting to StreamSource. Another option we could consider might be a FreeMarker Action which allows people to easily utilise FreeMarker's NodeModel functionality for processing XML. I think many people would prefer this as a templating solution, as an alternative to XSL. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4228893#4228893 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4228893

15 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: JSON serialization issues

by timfox

"jmesnil" wrote : I've encountered several issues with JSON serialization yesterday: | | - int and long are decoded as Integer when using JSONObject.get(key) method | => ClassCastException when the code is expecting a long and receives a integer | Internally JSON does not distinguish an int and a long (it's just a numeric string). However when decoding if the number is too large to fit in a Java int it will use a long I believe, otherwise it will use an int. So you should be ok just to cast. BTW I already did this in CoreMessagingProxy. anonymous wrote : | - String[] parameters are deserialized as Object[] | => All the createConnectionFactory() methods don't work: the ManagementService will not find the matching method since Object[] and String[] are different types (and not assignable). | I've hacked 1 createConnectionFactory method to pass the parameters as Object[] to run the JORAM tests but all the others methods won't work. | | So change the params to Object[] ?... View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4228857#4228857 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4228857

15 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - JSON serialization issues

by jmesnil

I've encountered several issues with JSON serialization yesterday: - int and long are decoded as Integer when using JSONObject.get(key) method => ClassCastException when the code is expecting a long and receives a integer - String[] parameters are deserialized as Object[] => All the createConnectionFactory() methods don't work: the ManagementService will not find the matching method since Object[] and String[] are different types (and not assignable). I've hacked 1 createConnectionFactory method to pass the parameters as Object[] to run the JORAM tests but all the others methods won't work. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4228855#4228855 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4228855

15 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: OnDemand as an aspect

by alesj

"jason.greene(a)jboss.com" wrote : or better yet automated on first non-lifecycle MC method access. How would you do that? Which beans should be automated? How would you know what to fully install (which beans to activate)? You need extra info. And annotations are a perfect fit. Not to mention that "first access" screams for AOP interceptors. :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4228851#4228851 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4228851

15 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums May 2009