November 2008 - jbpm-dev - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by alex.guizar＠jboss.com

Jamming all GPD properties in a single attribute seems quite complex to me. How about a nested optional element in the jPDL namespace to contain the GPD properties separately? For example: <state> | <gpd width="100" length="100" color="fuschia" /> | </state> Advantages: * Because the gpd element is optional, there is no need for a separate GPD namespace. * You do not need to jam different GPD properties in a single attribute. * The contents of the gpd element can be described in a schema, so you get code completion and validation at parsing time. This is not possible with a single attribute. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4192169#4192169 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4192169

15 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

definitely not introduce a gpd namespace... ha... haaa... HATCHOU ! for this alpha 1 release, a jpdl 4 namespace reference is it's not yet a must. we can postpone that. let's look at this on friday. does this have more impact then just updating the template used in the new jPDL 4 process wizard ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4192164#4192164 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4192164

15 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by koen.aers＠jboss.com

What is the outcome of this discussion now? Is there a 'gpd' namespace or not? Do I use the attribute 'g' and encode all the information I need in there to keep the language simple or do I use a verbose set of elements in which all the graphical information is rather explicit? Tom and I opted for the simplicity (meaning a 'g' attribute in the 'jpdl' namespace) which has been one of our assets until now. Later on, and if needed, we would always be able to add more advanced constructs. Regards, Koen View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4192154#4192154 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4192154

15 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

"thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : what is the advantage of being able to deploy a potentially invalid (i.e. not validated) process definition? That developers can just write a process without knowing the schema namespace reference and how to apply that. E.g. in unit tests it is not really practical if you're forced to refer the namespace. I don't think we should be dogmatic with schema validation. As that only validates a subset of all the constraints and validations. When parsing the process file, there are always a lot of things that can only be checked at parse time and that cannot be checked with the schema. So schema validation can not give you full coverage anyway. In the current parsing, the schema validation errors are collected and reported in a similar way as the (typically more complex) validation errors detected during interpretation of the DOM and build up of the process model. This way the designer will be able to show all the problems in the problem view one day. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4192029#4192029 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4192029

16 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by kukeltje

Sorry.. Yes, I forgot to comment on that as well... Currently the reason is kind of not neat. The xsd was not always in line with the parser, so if you wanted certain functionality, you could remove the namespace declaration from the processdefinition and xsd validating was turned off. Imo, this should not happen in jBPM 4 (nor should it have been in 3, just a lack of time to keep all in sync, including docs) So personally, I'd opt for not accepting a processdefinition if there is no namespace declaration, OR assume the latest and still validate. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4192023#4192023 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4192023

16 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

what is the advantage of being able to deploy a potentially invalid (i.e. not validated) process definition? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4192020#4192020 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4192020

16 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by kukeltje

@Koen, Yes, or better, if g only will contain 'color' than not why name it color? @Ed, you see... just like with real allergies... give the person little bits of the allergent (?) a large number of times, spread over time and the allergy automagically disappers.... They even think they were never allergic to it at all... LOL.... @Tom: Yes, the deafult namespace used should be jpdl which will not require prefixes then... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4192018#4192018 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4192018

16 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Register EventListener on JbppmContext

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

thomas says anonymous wrote : yes, that's ok. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191993#4191993 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191993

16 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Register EventListener on JbppmContext

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

bernd, if you want this feature, you can implement a hook. so that by default, the jbpm behaviour remains as is (read: no event listening) and that in your configuration file, you can plug in an event listener in the configuration file. if this is added with test cases and docs, i think it will also be ok for thomas. but i'll ask him to comment. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191990#4191990 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191990

16 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Register EventListener on JbppmContext

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

Only now i see the second page :-) So you already made the connection to the loggingservice yourself :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191989#4191989 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191989

16 years

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

jbpm-dev November 2008