[jBPM] - jBpm 4.3 service task has no optional args?
by Tim Stephenson
Tim Stephenson [http://community.jboss.org/people/tstephen] created the discussion
"jBpm 4.3 service task has no optional args?"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/557183#557183
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I've been looking at taskService in a BPMN2 process and I don't seem to be able to define an optional argument. If I define an arg such as:
<jbpm:arg>
<jbpm:object expr="#{cc}" />
</jbpm:arg>
but do not have such a variable in the process instance by the time the task is invoked then it fails with the following error:
[DefaultCommandService] exception while executing command org.jbpm.pvm.internal.cmd.CompleteTaskCmd@f4189a
org.jbpm.pvm.internal.wire.WireException: couldn't invoke method doTest: couldn't create argument 3: script evaluation error: javax.el.PropertyNotFoundException: Cannot find property cc
at org.jbpm.bpmn.flownodes.JavaServiceTaskActivity.perform(JavaServiceTaskActivity.java:94)
So it seems all args must exist or am I doing something wrong? I would prefer to handle optional params in my service class. What do you think?
thanks in advance, Tim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/557183#557183]
Start a new discussion in jBPM at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]
16 years
Re: [jboss-user] [jBPM] - BPMN 2.0 modeling with Signavio/jBPM
by Patricia B
Patricia B [http://community.jboss.org/people/patriciab] replied to the discussion
"BPMN 2.0 modeling with Signavio/jBPM"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/557166#557166
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Thank you to both of you for your replies.
For Koen:
Do you have any timeline for jBPM 5?
I read some posts on Drools forum, that actually Drools Flow, and jBPM5 will become one workflow engine ( http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/jBPM-and-Drools-Flow-... http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/jBPM-and-Drools-Flow-...). Can you comment on that?
For HuiSheng Xu:
One note here: I noticed that on my post, I talked about *business task*, but what I really meant, was *business rule task*. Not sure if that was obvious, and I thought to make a note of that to clarify it.
I would be more than happy to help with some ideas about business rule task and how I see that working, if there is indeed interest in having that implemented, and can be released before jBPM5 is out :). There is a business rule task implemented in jPDL (called rule task), so probably there is support already for that in the underlying execution platform (I do not know much details about jPDL or PVM internals). I'll put together some of my ideas about this, and share it, but I'll create a new entry on the forum for BPMN 2.0 business rule task.
Thanks,
--Patricia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/557166#557166]
Start a new discussion in jBPM at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]
16 years
Re: [jboss-user] [JBoss Remoting] - Remoting - "replacing control socket" Question
by Ron Sigal
Ron Sigal [http://community.jboss.org/people/ron.sigal%40jboss.com] replied to the discussion
"Remoting - "replacing control socket" Question"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/557158#557158
--------------------------------------------------------------
H Vidhya,
> vidhya Baskaran wrote:
>
> shouldn't these remoting threads be cleaned up on the server since the client is not using these threads anymore and have started using the new ones ? In my case the currentPoolSize never decreased.
Not necessarily. currentPoolSize represents the number of threads currently either (1) actively executing an invocation, or (2) sitting in a read() waiting for the next invocation. The latter threads will remain in that state until the read() times out, which, for JBossMessaging, is never, since remoting-bisocket-service.xml sets the "timeout" value to 0. (Note, by the way, that the read() will be interrupted and the thread made available for reuse if the maximum number of threads is reached.) Changing the control socket doesn't have any effect on this behavior. If you're concerned about the number of threads, there is an "idleTimeout" parameter which, if set to a value greater than 0, will shut down threads that haven't been used for "idleTimeout" seconds. Or, you could set "timeout" to a finite value.
> vidhya Baskaran wrote:
>
> Also does turning the ping off have any effect on the messaging (i will post it in the messaging forums...just wanted to see if you have any thoughts on it.)
>
Well, it used to be that JBossMessaging always turned off the ping, but I believe (and I think they now believe) that doing so can lead to problems. The trick is to find the right ping interval to avoid too many spurious timeouts due to busy servers or congested networks.
-Ron
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/557158#557158]
Start a new discussion in JBoss Remoting at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]
16 years