[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jPDL 4 early feedback
by heiko.braun＠jboss.com
anonymous wrote :
| mailing & sending a message to an ESB are such common BPM concepts, that they should be implemented in the language and not for every BPM project again and again.
|
Oh, I don't want people to implement that stuff. It's the way (schema) how to specify these activities that I can see unified.
I.e.
| Custom one:
| <activity class="org.foo.bar.SMS"/>
|
| Stock one:
| <activity class="org.jbpm.activities.Email"/>
|
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"/>
|
IMO it doesn't get easier if the way how jdpl4 can evolve isn't taken into consideration in the first place.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161432#4161432
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161432
16 years, 4 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jPDL 4 early feedback
by heiko.braun＠jboss.com
Maybe it helps if we regard jpdl4 with the core bpm constructs in mind for now. Control flow activities that is. I think this part needs to be stable before being released whereas use case activities are more likely subject to change and can easily be added along the way.
Let's do an example: We ship a stock "email" activity that's being represented by an email element in schema. Later on someone contributes an FTP activity to jBPM. At that point we already have stock activities being treated differently, because we cannot simply change the jpdl4 schema.
If we use one way to express extension points, and that's equal to both stock and custom extension, then we don't run into this problem.
Basically I am trying to get to the point where we have a clear way of extending jdpl4. Both for jpdl4 developers as well as users.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161426#4161426
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161426
16 years, 4 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jPDL 4 early feedback
by heiko.braun＠jboss.com
Stock versus custom activities
IMO stock activities like "email" shouldn't be treated different then activities that users supply. I would prefer one way of defining activities in jpdl4 and not begin with a set of special cases. Simplicity is something that I always hear in this forum, but IMO defining extra tags for "some" activities and a different schema for others makes it more complex and not any more simple.
I think the question is where to draw the line?
The way I see it, there is control flow activities and use case activities. The later would be "email somebody" or "forward the message to an ESB" type of extensions. To me it looks like being implemented as an activity is more like an implementation detail to the control flow ones and can easily be hidden behind a custom xml dialect, but the use case activities should be treated equally, regardless if they are prebuild ones, or extensions that users supply.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161423#4161423
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4161423
16 years, 4 months