[jBPM Development] - JBPM 4.1 : Task Count
by Krohm
Hello,
I am developing an application embedding JBPM 4.1.
In the front end, I need to get the list of pending tasks for a given user (and page it), as well as the total number of pending tasks ( in order, for example, to determine the number of pages).
I am currently using the TaskQuery interface for that. (this one http://docs.jboss.com/jbpm/v4/javadocs/org/jbpm/api/TaskQuery.html)
It is working perfectly, but I am a bit confused by the way I am counting tasks, and suspecting there is a better way to do it.
Once the different filters are set (user, activity, status ...), there is a method to get all the Tasks, but none to just count them.
So what I am doing for now is get the size of the list, but I am a bit afraid of what will happen if a few million records are sent back. Not mentioning the performances.
Is there a "better" way to have access to this information through the standard JBPM 4.1 API ?
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4258862#4258862
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4258862
14 years, 12 months
[jBPM Development] - Automated upgrade procedure
by alex.guizar＠jboss.com
Related issue: JBPM-2509
Ant target upgrade.jbpm.schema will:
* create the appropriate hibernate.cfg.xml file based on a property called "database"
* invoke the upgrade tool
The tool in turn will:
* run the update script that corresponds to the target database
* initialize the nextid property from the id generator
* add langid property to every deployed process
Future releases may need to add further steps, or end users may want to add extra steps. I'd prefer the steps listed under "tool" were scripted - possibly right there in install/build.xml. In this case each step would be a separate Ant task (upgrade-db, initialize-next-id, add-lang-id). Doing so has the side benefit of preventing the tool from becoming a monolithic, non-cohesive class as new steps are introduced.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4258783#4258783
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4258783
14 years, 12 months
[jBPM Development] - Re: parser for each jpdl release
by kukeltje
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : "kukeltje" wrote : Ok, the 'parking' of older parsers makes sense. I do have som questions though
| | - A version is not only the parser but also accompanying activity implementations. These are instantiated once a process is started (from what I understand). Does this have implications?
| |
|
| very true ! that's the tricky thing i ran into yesterday.
|
| so now i think we should aim for the following approach:
|
| * make sure that we can know the version of each process when we parse it. this can be a bit tricky, because 1) we do not enforce people to specify namespace, so when deploying a process, the current library version somehow has to be added in to the db.
|
I disagree. We should just enforce the namespace(declaration) That is what it is for.
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : and another issue is this: if we use the namespace for knowing the version, then this is also used to activate or not activate the xml validation. so we could end up with the situation that an invalid process deploys because originally the namespace was not present.
|
| if we then add the namespace before we save it in the deployment, then when loading it from the db it contains the namespace and that will activate validation. and hence the process can not be used. given that we use a cache after deployment, this kind of problem might not show up in test environments.
|
Then don't add it, but (unfortunately) assume that every deployed process without a namespace declaration is 4.0 or 4.1.
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote :
|
| * introduce a couple of if-then-else statements in the parser that depend on the version
|
| * the hard part is testing. i'm still trying to find how to we test this? how can we make sure that old deployed processes will still work correctly in newer versions of jBPM.
|
| i've been thinking about making sure that we run the test suite with a version parameter. then all the processes in the testsuite which don't have an explicit namespace, will use the configured parser version.
|
| but i'm not yet sure if this tests what we actually need. and to what extend it protects us from making backwards incompatible changes.
|
| if we get this wrong, the risk is that we break existing installations after they upgrade.
|
|
Yes, this is *the* challenge. But I'd use a namespace declaration for this. If none is there, assume 4.1. For the testing itself, maybe there is an option to use the tagged
svn) testcases for a specific version and run them against the latest jbpm release. This would prevent an explosion of the number of testcases that we need (to duplicate?) in the source.
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote :
|
| "kukeltje" wrote : - Currently the schema is not fully 'any:any' aware. (I still think it should be 'other:any' for the extensibility. Fully supporting this is needed if you automatically want to add a namespace since people can remove the ns now if they want to add custom attributes.
| |
|
| if you declare extensibility with any:any, then users can *still* define all their extensions in their own namespace. they are just not forced to do it if they want to.
|
| Again I strongly disagree. What if they extend some things and we start using the same tags? I *hate* the any:any. It was probably introduced (read forced upon us) in some weird way by a company that already developed something for it's customers. Just like with BPMN2 ;-)
"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote :
| why do think users *need* to define their extensions in a separate namespace. i agree that it would be good practice from a user perspective. but i don't see a reason why we should enforce our users to it like that.
|
| to prevent future element/tag clashes, to be explicit (I love explicit things, no.... I hate implicit things. Probably because it is one of the (few) negative aspects of females. Saying one thing but implying another.... "tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote :
|
| "kukeltje" wrote : - Does this mean that people have to redeploy their old processes if they want to take advantage of certain bugfixes in e.g. activity implementations?
|
| that's the kind of questions that we have to ask ourselves when composing a solution.
|
What about an activities file per jpdl version? If we know we are breaking backwards compatibility (testcases of previous version failing against the latest source) , we create a new activities class which extends the previous one and we e.g. introduce a version number in the packagename and put that in the new activities file? (I was dreaming when I wrote this, forgive me if it goes astray
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4258764#4258764
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4258764
14 years, 12 months