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

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: [BPMN2] How to implement uncontrolled sequence flow beha

by kukeltje

"camunda" wrote : Ronald wrote : | | - AbstractTaskBinding in jbpm.bpmn.flownodes.xml which does not exist (yet?) : Bernd | | | Sorry, my fault. committed it now. :-) Thought there was a lot more in there. Created a real abstract class and a separate TaskBinding,changed the UserTask and ManualTask to extend it and will move stuff up there where possible. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4246919#4246919 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4246919

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: HTTP response (status) codes should be returned through

by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com

"dward" wrote : I didn't hear any feedback, so I went ahead and made this change. You didn't hear feedback from me because I *thought* you were doing performance work and not this. I thought that I had time to finish my tasks first :) "dward" wrote : The default for SOAPClient, SOAPProducer, SOAPProxy and HttpRouter is now such that their response status will get returned by either the JBossRemotingGatewayListener and/or the HttpGatewayListener. | | ... | | Again, the default is now true. I still have to update the docs about this. We should also make sure that something gets highlighted in the release notes, I'll create a task for it. Kev View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4246906#4246906 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4246906

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: [BPMN2] Task-Outcome must be implemented differntly

by camunda

Tom wrote : | in any case, the parallelism and condition evaluation should go in the leaveBpmnActivity. so that by default, each outgoing transition is evaluated and forked if the condition resolves to true. | Exactly, this is what I think as well. I will just set a variable "outcome" in the UserTaskActivity.signal method with the value of the signalName? BPMN spec doesn't say anything about it (or I missed it). I think this is a good solution at least for the moment, what do you think? Tom wrote : | But we can also consider adding a BpmnService which allows the user to enter "BPMN" messages that the engine has to react to. This way we can offer the real BPMN terminology to the BPMN users. | I would wait if we see the demand for it. For the moment I think the bigger advantage is to have the same API for BPMN or jPDL. If we want to leverage full BPMN vocabulary we still can write that facade... Ronald wrote : | wow, we have a noob here in the forum... ;-) | Jajaja ;-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4246884#4246884 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4246884

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: VFS3 - missing features and other issues

by richard.opalka＠jboss.com

"alesj" wrote : | it means I have to re-write a lot of MC's tests, which is definitely something I don't wanna do or have time for. IMHO this is a responsibility of the person doing the refactoring. Generally speaking refactoring is always about functional and passing tests. If someone is doing API refactoring and he's not refactoring and running the tests in each refactoring iteration then it's not refactoring. I'd call it "experiment" or "prove of concept research" with high probability to fail at the end :( View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4246882#4246882 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4246882

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: [BPMN2] How to implement uncontrolled sequence flow beha

by camunda

Tom wrote : | add a method to the BpmnActivity like leaveBpmnActivity(ExecutionImpl execution) | Okay, but how does it get called? Where do I include the call to this method? Tom wrote : | so it doesn't belong in the pvm proceed. it belongs in the process language specific base classes. | Agreed. Ronald wrote : | Maybe it is a good idea for the time-being to just make it work and file a jira issue for a real solution. That way it can work for everybody by using the source, but the issue is not forgotten. | It required a change in the PVM code base, this I don't want to commit easily. In the bpmn module I wouldn't hestitate to do ;-) Tom wrote : | (ps you already might have noticed that in our own implementations, it is best to use the impl classes and not the interfaces) | Yes, I did ;-) Ah, and for the test cases I again missed the processInstance.getActivityName() method in the interface... See http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=158168 View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4246880#4246880 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4246880

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: [BPMN2] How to implement uncontrolled sequence flow beha

by camunda

Ronald wrote : | - AbstractTaskBinding in jbpm.bpmn.flownodes.xml which does not exist (yet?) : Bernd | Sorry, my fault. committed it now. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4246877#4246877 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4246877

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: [BPMN2] Task-Outcome must be implemented differntly

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

i'm not sure if i get the point exactly. in any case, the parallelism and condition evaluation should go in the leaveBpmnActivity. so that by default, each outgoing transition is evaluated and forked if the condition resolves to true. another aspect is that we should consider extra services. executionService.signalExecutionById might be fine. But we can also consider adding a BpmnService which allows the user to enter "BPMN" messages that the engine has to react to. This way we can offer the real BPMN terminology to the BPMN users. On the other hand, leveraging the ExecutionService might be easier to get started in the beginning. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4246866#4246866 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4246866

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: [BPMN2] How to implement uncontrolled sequence flow beha

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

btw, if bpmn would have had the synchronizing default, it is not more difficult then the parallel outgoing default. it's all a matter of methods in the base activity classes. during pvm research i experimented with extra support for these concepts. (synchronizers and propagators) turns out that all the convenience support that is build in for one use case is inconvenience for another use case. eventually it all boils down to implementating the runtime behaviour of an activity. so pvm should only have one method to implement that behaviour. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4246861#4246861 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4246861

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Re-using the REST facade

by jbarrez

Ah now I see your problem. That's indeed a tricky one to solve without hacking (a lot) the jbpm-console integration code. Your suggestion to push your own process engine to jndi doesn't seem so unreasonable, but I'm wondering how this easiliy could be done, since the processengine is only accessible on the JBoss server. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4246860#4246860 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4246860

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: [BPMN2] How to implement uncontrolled sequence flow beha

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

the real solution is to implement it in the BPMN activity base class. add a method to the BpmnActivity like leaveBpmnActivity(ExecutionImpl execution) changing the pvm in this respect is not desirable. the generic behaviour of the proceed is something that i think over time should be faded out. activities should be explicit in what they want to see happening. combined default behaviour like in the proceed is always process language specific. so it doesn't belong in the pvm proceed. it belongs in the process language specific base classes. (ps you already might have noticed that in our own implementations, it is best to use the impl classes and not the interfaces) View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4246857#4246857 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4246857

15 years, 7 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 July 2009