November 2008 - jbpm-dev - Jboss List Archives

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

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

i replied on the mailing list instead of the forum: anonymous wrote : The scope of jBPM 3 work is already way beyond the resources we have for it. We should focus on the necessary work to put jBPM 3 in maintenance rather then introducing a new API on it. | | We said in the meeting in the context of the migration debate that no API will be introduced in jBPM 3. A new API will be introduced in jBPM 4. | Apart from that, using the term process to indicate a process instance would be highly confusing. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190173#4190173 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190173

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

Please also note, that both Process and ProcessDefinition share common functionality from ProcessStructure http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpm-spec/jbpm-spec-api/apidocs/org/jbpm/api/model... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190168#4190168 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190168

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : | Otoh, it makes it kind of clear that it is *not* a definition. | The distinction to ProcessDefinition is still there. The API would have ProcessDefinition http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpm-spec/jbpm-spec-api/apidocs/org/jbpm/api/model... and Process http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpm-spec/jbpm-spec-api/apidocs/org/jbpm/api/model... anonymous wrote : | What about the relation between processes and subprocesses? Are those only visible via the definition? | They would be visible on both the ProcessDefinition and the Process. The ProcessDefinition is the immutable instance that defines the structure. The Process is the runtime copy of that structure that is mutable to some degree. (i.e. to associate state with individual Node instances) A running Sub-Process would probably be a reference to a Process, but this definitely needs to be revisited when we come to the point when Sub-Processes appear on the API roadmap, which should be early next year. Thanks for your feedback View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190165#4190165 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190165

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Drill down on database incompatibilities

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

Folks, I compared the generated DDL scripts between * jpdl-3.2.2-SOA-4.2.0.CP02 * jbpm-3.3.0.GA Here the results | --- src/main/resources/ddl/jbpm.jpdl.mysql.sql (revision 2985) | +++ src/main/resources/ddl/jbpm.jpdl.mysql.sql (working copy) | | -create table JBPM_MODULEDEFINITION (... NAME_ text, ...) | +create table JBPM_MODULEDEFINITION (... NAME_ varchar(255), ...) | | -create table JBPM_NODE (... SIGNAL_ integer, ...) | +create table JBPM_NODE (... PARENTLOCKMODE_ varchar(255), SIGNAL_ integer, ...) | | -create table JBPM_VARIABLEINSTANCE (... STRINGVALUE_ text, ...) | +create table JBPM_VARIABLEINSTANCE (... STRINGVALUE_ varchar(255), ...) | Is this what you would expect? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190144#4190144 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190144

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by kukeltje

"thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : ProcessInstance => Process | | In Java an object instance is commonly called Foo not FooInstance. The standard talks about an "instance of a Process" rather than a ProcessInstance | | Hmm... semantics? imo this is not about the intstance of a Process (Java) object but of an instance of the Process as a business object as compared to the definition. Your argument is kind of still valid than (about removing the Instance part) just in another context. Otoh, it makes it kind of clear that it is *not* a definition. "thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : Tokens may have a parent child relationship, Process' do not. | A Process can be started, a Token cannot. | A Process has structure (i.e. child Nodes), a Token has not. | What about the relation between processes and subprocesses? Are those only visible via the definition? It might make sense to have a method in the api that says Process.hasRunningChildProcesses() or something like that. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190134#4190134 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190134

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

Here is the current home of the CTS test classes http://fisheye.jboss.com/browse/JbpmSvn/projects/spec/trunk/modules/cts/s... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190092#4190092 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190092

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by kukeltje

Nice progress, I did not ecpect this. Will have a look at it, the comming days. You have some valid arguments for already having it available for jBPM 3. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190083#4190083 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190083

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

Ah ... forgot to say Feedback on on individual API signature details and specific test cases is of course welcome. The discussion around these details should start rather sooner than later to give folks the chance to work productively with snapshots that are reasonable stable. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190023#4190023 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190023

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

Folks, following our team meeting in Antwerp I trimmed down the API+CTS that I had in the incubator project to the functionality and concepts that we agreed on. http://www.jboss.org/community/docs/DOC-12945 In Antwerp we decided that the threading model that is native to jBPM (i.e. borrowing the client Thread) should be supported by the API, which actually makes a mapping to the jBPM3 code base possible. How the API+CTS can be integrated in the Maven build is documented here http://www.jboss.org/community/docs/DOC-12871 the Java Doc is here http://jbpm.dyndns.org/jbpm-spec/jbpm-spec-api/apidocs/index.html Doing this work for jBPM3 has multiple benefits. #1 It will be much easier to decide when jBPM3 functional equivalence is reached #2 Projects that require a stable API but also have a dependency on jBPM3 can start to decouple from jBPM3 implementation detail and interface with the API. This is particularly true for the GWT-Console and to some extend to the GPD. #3 The migration to jBPM4 will be seamless for projects that use the API as an integration point #4 TomB who leads the API and provides an implementation for jBPM4 can reuse the jBPM3 integration and make good progress in jBPM4. #5 Folks that know jBPM3 can start to provide qualified and meaningful feedback based on API signatures and CTS test implementations Over the next couple of weeks I still expect to see some movement in the API+CTS snapshot artefacts until it becomes clear what will actually go into 3.3.1 and 4.0.0.Alpha1 respectively View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190004#4190004 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190004

15 years, 7 months

3
2
0 / 0

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

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

Here a few notes on differences and limitations ProcessInstance => Process In Java an object instance is commonly called Foo not FooInstance. The standard talks about an "instance of a Process" rather than a ProcessInstance Execution => Token We agreed that an 'Execution' is not the same as a 'ProcessInstance' and should therefore exist as two separate entities in the API. Token is the concept that is known to jBPM3 users already and also appears under this name in the standards. Tokens may have a parent child relationship, Process' do not. A Process can be started, a Token cannot. A Process has structure (i.e. child Nodes), a Token has not. I didn't (yet) adapt the XML marshalling layer. Currently this is implementation detail of the dialect that is actually used in combination with the CTS and does neither effect CTS test cases nor API signatures. In other words, if the dialect is pluggable anyway it does not matter much what the actual XML will look like. This becomes however important as soon as XML snippets enter the documentation. My mid Dec this should be settled so that we can start posting process definitions in XML View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4190009#4190009 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4190009

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

jbpm-dev November 2008