"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : "david.lloyd(a)jboss.com" wrote : But the main recurring factor is that we need a good search/navigation system, and that's what I have in progress right now. | | | | once you have initial ideas, post them here for review. | There's not a lot to it: there are filter fields, and a results pane. Entering data into the filter fields will modify the backing query. You can switch what you're searching for with a dropdown menu. The results are paginated with 10, 25, or 50 results per page. Depending on what you search for, there's a drilldown link (or links) to navigate to e.g. process definitions or tasks. "tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : I get the impression that you are thinking too generic in this first iteration. I think the best approach is just hack 2 or 3 queries together ad hoc and get them in the web console, just to get a feel of the web console in general. No reusability in mind. Consider this a prototype. I'd say that this is what I've already done with the "average time per node" query. And as far as being too generic... well, I have to implement something for real at some point, right? In any case, I am just focusing on one or two queries, and I don't have a final mechanism to make it truily "generic" just yet, so right now it is sort of halfway between final and prototype. "tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : Then we should design the BAM DB (shouldn't we call this a Business Intelligence DB instead ?) and build the generic query framework on top of that. We need a generic query framework even for normal navigation of the runtime state in my opinion. I think it would be great to use the same framework in both places. The problem with the existing screen is, if you have more than a few tasks in each list, and a large number of process definitions, the screen becomes a bit cumbersome. And, there's no way to view the status of anything really, which is a function that is needed not only for BAM, but also as more of an administrative function to see if things are actually working. "kukeltje" wrote : BAM could (should?) be done on the normal database and a BI DB should be a separate one (for load reasons). I agree that BI is separate from BAM. Another important thing to keep in mind is that, by our current requirements, BAM really encompasses monitoring what is currently happening, as well as the historical information. So what we're calling the "BAM Database" is probably better referred to as the "Historical Database" or something like that. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3977863#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...