follow up: no class in assignment
by Heiko Braun
That's the associated pdl:
<task-node name="Wrap up" >
<task name="Wrap up">
<assignment></assignment>
</task>
<transition to="end" name="finish this one"></transition>
</task-node>
Is the assignment with pooled actors invalid?
/Heiko
16 years
jBPM-3.3.0 is in fact backward compatible
by Thomas Diesler
Folks,
https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBPM-1843
I pleased to tell you that we don't need to revert the jbpm-3.3.0
schema. The current 3.3.0 schema is indeed backward compatible. Here is
the proof
#1 On Sybase I created a jbpm322 database, which I loaded with the
jbpm-3.2.2 schema
#2 I resurrected the SchemaUpdate tool (JBPM-1823) to generate a
jbpm-3.3.0 schema update script (this only adds one column)
#3 I created a jbpmcomp database, which I loaded with the jbpm-3.2.2
schema and the jbpm-3.3.0 update script
#4 I point the QA matrix at the jbpmcomp database
The Matrix runs successful
http://jbpm.dyndns.org:8280/hudson/job/jBPM3-Matrix/11/
That mean that customers can upgrade to jbpm-3.3.0 without having to
change the datatype from varchar(4000) to text. Hibernate + the Sybase
jTDS driver will compensate for the difference in SQL data type and work
with both schemas.
New installations can use the jbpm-3.3.0 schema and can be expected to
work. This was shown by the original jbpm-3.3.0.GA QA runs.
cheers
-thomas
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Diesler
BPM Product Lead
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
16 years
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4
by tom.baeyens@jboss.com
we discussed exactly the topic element vs attribute a full hour yesterday. and we swinged back and forth between element and attribute.
we looked into various bpmn modellers to see what kind of information they had apart from the
* diagram size
* activity box bounds coordinates, width and height
* transition/flow anchor points and bendpoints
it turned out to be only color and font in activities. therefor we think it should not be made extensible. and we thought about what the scope was of our graphical designer efforts.
g is only for the gpd. other extensions should go into their own extension element / attribute.
maybe we should even not put the g declaration in the xsd and cause every element should have an anyAttribute declaration for extensibility.
does this reasoning make sense to you as well ?
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191119#4191119
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191119
16 years