June 2008 - jbpm-dev - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jPDL 4 early feedback

by alex.guizar＠jboss.com

The problem with this kind of syntax: <activity type="mail"/> is that you can't define a schema anymore. The content type of the activity element has to allow any element. One solution is to use nested subelements: <activity> | <mail to='boss' /> | </activity> However, this is verbose and makes the process definition less readable. WS-BPEL solved this by having a number of stock activities like: <bpel:invoke operation="selfdestruct" /> and providing a placeholder for extension activities: <bpel:extensionActivity> | <jbpm:mail to='boss' /> | </bpel:extensionActivity> The BPEL approach may be worth considering here. @Heiko: the earlier posts were about skipping validation for user-defined extension items whose schema was unavailable. Just FYI. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161629#4161629 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161629

16 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jPDL 4 early feedback

by kukeltje

'the' xsd is not available yet... for the very reason this discussion is taking place.... it has to be defined based on input from us. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161603#4161603 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161603

16 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jPDL 4 early feedback

by kukeltje

anonymous wrote : If we cannot extend the schema within minor releases we'll something like this soon: | | | | | | Stock one in 4.0: | | <email/> | | | | Stock one in 4.1: | | <activity class="org.jbpm.activities.FTP"/> | | | | | This already happend in 3. We have a | <mail name="send mail"> | .. | </mail> | and | <node name="esb1> | <action class=org.jboss.soa.esb.services.jbpm.actionhandlers.EsbActionHandler"> | .... (params) | </action> | </node> | | The reason here was that the jBPM and the GPD could be extended by a ESB configuration pane without changing the core... <activity type="FTP"/> should be possible by using 'refs' to generic actionhandlers (sorry, not used to the pvm wordings). Maybe even to generic refs whose implementations are in the core and do not have to be configured in the processdefinition. Still, for me mail, esb etc should not be specific nodes since they are not for the control flow.... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161602#4161602 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161602

16 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jBPM3 switched to maven

by alex.guizar＠jboss.com

I get it now. Thank you for the explanation, Thomas. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161574#4161574 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161574

16 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jPDL 4 early feedback

by estaub

Is the XSD itself available? Because it's so much more concise than javadoc, it's easier to see the big picture with the XSD - especially if you have good schema-viewing software. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161568#4161568 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161568

16 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - jBPM3 uses IzPack installer

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpmwiki/index.php?title=JBPM3BuildingTheInstaller View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161541#4161541 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161541

16 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Expression Evaluation in ActionHandler Properties

by estaub

Something like this is really important for building reusable ActionHandlers that aren't tied to a particular process definition. The workaround that I've used is to write the ActionHandler so that it expects a variable name as a parameter. The ActionHandler then gets the value of the variable at run-time. This works pretty good, except that you end up with more process variables. -Ed Staub View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161514#4161514 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161514

16 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jPDL 4 early feedback

by heiko.braun＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : | Now I see your point, my apologies for the misunderstanding. | NP. Currently I am just brainstorming. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161507#4161507 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161507

16 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Defining a public API for jBPM

by estaub

I'd add to Tom's list: 4) migration support between major releases -- to the extent it is reasonable. Speaking of which... what migration (if any) is expected to be feasible for JPDL 4.0? -ed View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161506#4161506 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161506

16 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jPDL 4 early feedback

by camunda

Okay, another proof that examples are very important :-) I think it may be a good idea, I have two concerns: - The Designer has to be able handle it - It is less readable if you write the process by hand (what a lot of people do). I wouldn't underestimate that argument. At least I would vote for something like this: | <activity type="FTP"/> | Ant the mapping is done somewhere centrally. Easier to switch implementation and more readable. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161448#4161448 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161448

16 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

jbpm-dev June 2008