Re: [jboss-user] [jBPM Development] - JBPM-2537
by HuiSheng Xu
HuiSheng Xu [http://community.jboss.org/people/rebody] replied to the discussion
"JBPM-2537"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/541219#541219
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Maciej,
The patch run perfectly. There are still something we should review.
1.Should we modify TaskImpl.isComplete(), let this method fit additional states: 'timeout' and 'cancelled'.
Now the isComplete() is like this:
public boolean isCompleted() {
if (Task.STATE_COMPLETED.equals(state)) {
return true;
}
if ((Task.STATE_OPEN.equals(state)) || (Task.STATE_SUSPENDED.equals(state))) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
We should add more information in here. And the state constaints is defined in Task interface. So should we move STATE_TIMEOUT and STATE_CANCELLED from HistoryTask to Task?
2. The content of TaskTimeout.java and TaskCancel.java is exactly the same. The only difference of them is the completion state, so should we make a abstract class, e.g. AbstractTaskCancel, and let them inherit the superclass?
3. I notice that there is a jbpm.task.lifecycle.xml configution file in the classpath since jBPM-4.0.0-Alpha2, and it contains the prossible states of task. Should we modify it as well? or this configuration file is useless and should be removed in the future version? The content of this file like below:
<task-lifecycle initial="open">
<state name="open">
<transition name="complete" to="completed" />
<transition name="suspend" to="suspended" />
<transition name="cancel" to="cancelled" />
</state>
<state name="suspended">
<transition name="resume" to="open" />
<transition name="cancel" to="cancelled" />
</state>
<state name="cancelled" />
<state name="completed" />
</task-lifecycle>
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/541219#541219]
Start a new discussion in jBPM Development at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]
15 years, 9 months
Re: [jboss-user] [jBPM Development] - jBPM5 Request for Comments
by Torsten R
Torsten R [http://community.jboss.org/people/tcr] commented on the document
"jBPM5 Request for Comments"
To view all comments on this document, visit: http://community.jboss.org/docs/DOC-15172#comment-3277
--------------------------------------------------
Some thoughts:
Very good and one of the reasons why we choose JBPM4 some time ago:
"based on a Process Virtual Machine (PVM), allowing the definition of multiple process languages on the same process engine"
In addition I would keep the interceptor chain. It really gives you a lot of integration options (different app servers, frameworks, transaction managers), all on a solid plug-and-play basis. In combination with the remote command executor this was one of the main benefits in our project.
A very important decision is how the process definitions are to be stored. Right now (jbpm4) processes are stored as XML in DB and the repository-session will ask the deployer to actually instanitate the process definition-object on every startup. This prevents dynamic ad-hoc definitions as they cannot be persistet (only one way is supported: from XML to process definition). JBPM could be a very good Workflow-Engine supporting Ad-Hoc workflows, if there was a mechansim to create and store defintiions via API.
--------------------------------------------------
15 years, 9 months