November 2008 - jbpm-dev - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by kukeltje

now I'm confused. What is stay as it is? ProcessInstance and ProcessDefinition or Process and ProcessDefinition? Which one do you vote for Koen? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190593#4190593 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190593

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by koen.aers＠jboss.com

"thomas" wrote : From your comments, and again I am grateful for those, I take it can stay as is. +1 Change is (sometimes) good, but it should not lead to confusion. Cheers, Koen View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190408#4190408 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190408

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : | These methods are in our case 'hidden' in a Process Access Object | Many folks will use the API directly as documented by the CTS test cases and the documentation itself. >From your comments, and again I am grateful for those, I take it can stay as is. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190391#4190391 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190391

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by kukeltje

I did not propose anything adittionally, because the original one (with Instances appended) compared to jusr Process was wat we were talking about. Sorry if that was not clear (although Tom and Ed got that). With regard to the code snippets, These methods are in our case 'hidden' in a Process Access Object, so not used in many places. The fact that it is shorter (and yes, looks better) is not that big a deal. ProcessInstance is more specific, but if others disagree with this, I will certainly not make this a matter of life and death :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190273#4190273 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190273

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by kukeltje

"benhu" wrote : is this already included in jBPM 3.3.0 GA? No, it is a separate package in alpha (or even pre-alpha) state. Lot's of changes can and probably will take place as you can see about the discussion (of which we had some very constructive ones during the team meeting). Reading Tom's arguments, it is currently there to get feedback on it, e.g. by using it in combination with jBPM 3.3 AS EXPERIMENT. So do not rely on it for production. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190265#4190265 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190265

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by benhu

"thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : Thanks for your comments, but what should it actually be? | | #1 | ProcessDefinition + Process | | #2 | ProcessDefinition + ProcessInstance | | #3 | something else completely | | Please also consider the usage of these artefacts | | | | ProcessDefinitionService pdService = engine.getService(ProcessDefinitionService.class); | | | | ProcessDefinition procDef = pdService.createProcessDefinition(XML); | | Process proc = procDef.newProcess(); | | | | Token tok = proc.startProcess(); | | | | vs. | | | | ProcessDefinitionService pdService = engine.getService(ProcessDefinitionService.class); | | | | ProcessDefinition procDef = pdService.createProcessDefinition(XML); | | ProcessInstance procInst = procDef.newProcessInstance(); | | | | Token tok = procInst.startProcessInstance(); | | | | Generally, please come up with an alternative suggestion if a given proposal is no good for some reason i.e. I don't like Foo because ... Instead I propose Bar | I think #1 works fine. From my point of view, even for business people when they mention "Process", they can mean both. Because for business people, they do not differentiate between definition and "instance". They think that they draw a diagram and the process is up like magic. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190250#4190250 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190250

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by benhu

is this already included in jBPM 3.3.0 GA? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190249#4190249 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190249

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

Thanks for your comments, but what should it actually be? #1 ProcessDefinition + Process #2 ProcessDefinition + ProcessInstance #3 something else completely Generally, its a good idea to come up with an alternative suggestion if a given proposal is no good for some reason i.e. I don't like Foo because ... Instead I propose Bar View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190206#4190206 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190206

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by kukeltje

anonymous wrote : The distinction to ProcessDefinition is still there. I know that there is a Process and a ProcessDefinition, but to many people the difference might not be clear. anonymous wrote : Apart from that, using the term process to indicate a process instance would be highly confusing. This is indeed what I meant. And reading Ed's comment he thinks the same. Might be the difference between the (up to now) more theoretical people and the ones with dirty hands ;-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190203#4190203 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190203

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: API first cut available for jBPM3

by estaub

"thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : anonymous wrote : | | Otoh, it makes it kind of clear that it is *not* a definition. | | | | The distinction to ProcessDefinition is still there. | FWIW (bikeshed) - in my experience with business-analysts and other non-Java-heads, people informally use the term "Process" to refer to a Definition more often than they use it to refer to an Instance. When we talk about, say, "designing a business process", we're clearly talking about a definition, not an instance. This is an odd case where English has a word for the definition, but not for instances of that definition. So "Process" doesn't obviously mean "Process Instance". -Ed Staub View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190181#4190181 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190181

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

jbpm-dev November 2008