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

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: New console snapshot published, Task Forms included

by camunda

Hmm, why not reference the ftl file directly from the task? | <process> | [...] | <task name="Verify Loan Request"> | <form-template ref="loan_request_form.ftl"/> | </task> | [...] | </process> | The additional indirection doesn't help much. Or other opinions on that? And the <form-template> mechanism could be used if you hook in you own stuff as well (e.g. with Java Swing Clients we could confuigure a Swing panel or whatever).... View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239384#4239384 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4239384

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Why is the console a different repos

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

i think's unwise for jboss to invest in 2 engines and then select the best one in this particular case. exploring 2 technological strategies/solutions and see what works would be justifyable. but that is imo completely different from the situation we're discussing. in this case, there is no feature that they target that cannot be build on jbpm. from the beginning i have tried to collaborate by pointing out how all the features they requested could have been build on on jbpm. apart from taste, i have not been able to see a real reason why they had to do it different. in their logic, they think that they are doing things differently (mostly joint process/rule execution, and nicer integrated in drools codebase/api). and therefor must build their own version of the pvm. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239383#4239383 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4239383

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: EJB 2.1 Beans in jbpm 4?

by camunda

Hmm, I get the feeling that this offers not such a powerful options like Commands especially for remote communication. Too much invocations. Reminds me of EJB 2 EntityBeans ;-) No, thank god not that bad.. Okay, lets see what happen in the projects. The Commands are not gone, so if you need more you can get it. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239380#4239380 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4239380

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: Http Gateway - requirements please...

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

"tfennelly" wrote : OK... so I think we are in agreement then that EBWS in it's current form would need to change in order to provide a common basis for these http related features? I thought Kev was suggesting otherwise. It was never my intent to suggest otherwise, apologies for not being clear. "tfennelly" wrote : after that (for me) it's just about the format and I think keeping it in line with the web.xml makes sense from a user perspective (they know web.xml) and removes the need to perform a mapping (because it's already in the target format). They also know jboss-esb.xml where the rest of the config lies. "tfennelly" wrote : What we differ on perhaps is the strictness of the validation. Kev and Dave prefer the "we only allow values X, Y and Z and we block everything else" approach, where as Danny and I seem to prefer the "we don't allow A, B, or C but do allow everything else" approach (if that makes sense :) ). I think this is a fair summary, although I would add that 'allowing everything else' ties us into a particular implementation (it is now part of the public API) and also allows unforeseen side-effects to exist without constraint, especially if there is also a D which should have been explicitly excluded but wasn't. Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239361#4239361 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4239361

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: Http Gateway - requirements please...

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

"dward" wrote : Even though part of me wants to side with Tom and Daniel on this (so as to allow maximum flexibility to the user), I think we would be opening up a big can of worms. I don't think we want to - or even should - support everything you can put into a web.xml. We're not trying to be an entire "Servlet [Container] Gateway" here, just an HTTP Gateway. This is also my opinion. The purpose of the http gateway is to expose services through http endpoints, and only that. The fact that we are generating web.xml and exposing these through a servlet container should be an implementation detail. If we are to support merging in web.xml then it has the following negative impacts - potential merges can cause the generated web.xml to be invalid - potential merges can cause interference at run time - any generation we do automatically becomes part of the public API of the gateway. Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239355#4239355 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4239355

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Parallel deployments

by alesj

I guess, apart from ByteMan, you can also put in the initial culprit that started off this whole discussion/impl - Bela's JGroups. (if it's not too much of a config effort) So that we see this "live", how it behaves with Asynch and w/o. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239351#4239351 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4239351

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Smooks lifecycle resources

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

I have reopened a smooks issue to remove a generic addition to the lifecycle resources, the Cleanable interface. My reasons for doing this are as follows - We really need to explicitly manage the Smooks lifecycle, creation is handled differently in different areas (see shutdown hook removal) - It introduced a memory leak I'll add a smooks explicit lifecycle resource and combine all the current initialisation behaviour. Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239335#4239335 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4239335

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Why is the console a different repos

by heiko.braun＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : | But I think, thats not for us to discuss, it would be a JBoss management task. | No, it's definitely not a management thing. JBoss projects are still OSS run by the project leads. It's something the project leads need to discuss and decide. There will not be a top-to-bottom decision on this. Actually it can't if you think about the way projects are organized within jboss. Avoiding the discussion, or doing it non-public doesn't help either. So I am glad you guys share your concerns. IMO a public statement like drools did is a good step into the right direction: http://www.jboss.org/drools/drools-flow.html But on the other hand, if I compare it to the web service project, there has always been open source competition. In our case it was Metro and CXF. Still this didn't question our approach to provide JBossWS in the first place. But in the long run, community and users did decide for another stack. In this case CXF. But we did make all three of them available on jboss. IMO we'll see something similar with drools and jbpm. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239333#4239333 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4239333

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Extending jBPM, Plugging in custom IdentityService imple

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

at first sight, this seems to be the right way View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239322#4239322 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4239322

16 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[QA of JBoss Portal] - Cash loan quick

by lauraishere

http://www.sonicloans.net/cash-loan-quick.html is the quickest way to get the extra money that you want, but there are many things you have to study before you have to make the decision of applying for a http://www.sonicloans.net/cash-loan-quick.html. Each cash lender has more or less different requirements you have to meet. Here are some of the essential conditions: --- You have to live in the U.S. --- You have to have a job for at least 3 months --- You have to have a salary of at least $1,000 per month --- You have an active checking account --- You have a home phone where they can reach you --- Get all your information ready and fill out the form completely and accurately. --- Be entirely honest when you complete the online application. They will check to make sure what you tell them is true. --- Do not apply for more than your needs, you may be charmed to step-up the amount of money due to accessory and unnecessary desires but you have to abstain from doing so as it will compromise your ability to repay. Even if your salary would allow higher sums, be sure the cash amount is adequate so the monthly payments will not leave you without some money until the next paycheck. You now know more than 95% of the people looking to borrow money online. You are ready to find a loaner you can trust, and to get a loan authorized now. That gives you a huge leg up on everyone else who tries to apply for a http://www.sonicloans.net/cash-loan-quick.html. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239321#4239321 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4239321

16 years, 9 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 June 2009