[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: schema for mail template and activity
by tom.baeyens@jboss.com
"alex.guizar(a)jboss.com" wrote : How about the following proposal on the body.
| <body type="text"> | <body type="html">
|
ok. a type attribute is best.
"alex.guizar(a)jboss.com" wrote : Indeed, the attachment name can be deduced from the URL/resource/file but we can have an attribute to specify a different name.
|
distilling the file name from the url/resource/file is ok
"alex.guizar(a)jboss.com" wrote : @tom, I think of the producer as the "Mail" class in jBPM 3, only truly replaceable.
|
i got that.
MailSession should become what Mail was before: the impl class that exposed the functionality that we have implemented.
Customisation of mail functionality should be another level. E.g. our base class MailActivity can be customized by users into a CustomMailActivity.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4225455#4225455
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4225455
15 years, 8 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: schema for mail template and activity
by bradsdavis
I would have really liked the templates to be defined in the same way as in the jPDL. If you think about it, templates really are just mail nodes that have been externalized from the process definition. Keeping then consistent with jPDL would have allowed people to pick that up pretty easily.
However, if we want to have a seperate language for templates, I think what you are doing looks good. My only suggestion from the last post is that the producer attribute be moved within the template as well. This will allow users to change the email template type outside of deploying a new process.
@tom:
I think making it body-text and body-html would be fine. I also agree that attachments should have a name element.
Also Tom, I can install skype if you want to walk over the basis for producers. I also have written a bit of documentation thats in the email_branch if you check it out and package the documentation module.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4225378#4225378
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4225378
15 years, 8 months