November 2008 - jbpm-dev - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by kukeltje

"thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : Yes, a general extension mechanism should be put in place that allows the GPD and other consumers of the jPDL to extend the definition in an appropriate way. | | GPD concerns should not leak into the jPDL XSD Funny, this latter remark is a 180 degree turn from what was initially the idea. Making one jpdl file with process and graphical info in it instead of having to keep two files in sync. The 'general extension machanism' is using good extensionpoints in the xsd. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191166#4191166 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191166

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

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

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

ok, I'll incorporate your comments View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191164#4191164 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191164

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by kukeltje

"tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : we discussed exactly the topic element vs attribute a full hour yesterday. and we swinged back and forth between element and attribute. | | we looked into various bpmn modellers to see what kind of information they had apart from the | * diagram size | * activity box bounds coordinates, width and height | * transition/flow anchor points and bendpoints | Where is this info going then? "tom.baeyens(a)jboss.com" wrote : does this reasoning make sense to you as well ? No, since it does not say where the other info is going.... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191163#4191163 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191163

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by thomas.diesler＠jboss.com

Yes, a general extension mechanism should be put in place that allows the GPD and other consumers of the jPDL to extend the definition in an appropriate way. GPD concerns should not leak into the jPDL XSD View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191161#4191161 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191161

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

follow up: no class in assignment

by Heiko Braun

That's the associated pdl: <task-node name="Wrap up" > <task name="Wrap up"> <assignment></assignment> </task> <transition to="end" name="finish this one"></transition> </task-node> Is the assignment with pooled actors invalid? /Heiko

15 years, 7 months

3
4
0 / 0

jBPM-3.3.0 is in fact backward compatible

by Thomas Diesler

Folks, https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBPM-1843 I pleased to tell you that we don't need to revert the jbpm-3.3.0 schema. The current 3.3.0 schema is indeed backward compatible. Here is the proof #1 On Sybase I created a jbpm322 database, which I loaded with the jbpm-3.2.2 schema #2 I resurrected the SchemaUpdate tool (JBPM-1823) to generate a jbpm-3.3.0 schema update script (this only adds one column) #3 I created a jbpmcomp database, which I loaded with the jbpm-3.2.2 schema and the jbpm-3.3.0 update script #4 I point the QA matrix at the jbpmcomp database The Matrix runs successful http://jbpm.dyndns.org:8280/hudson/job/jBPM3-Matrix/11/ That mean that customers can upgrade to jbpm-3.3.0 without having to change the datatype from varchar(4000) to text. Hibernate + the Sybase jTDS driver will compensate for the difference in SQL data type and work with both schemas. New installations can use the jbpm-3.3.0 schema and can be expected to work. This was shown by the original jbpm-3.3.0.GA QA runs. cheers -thomas -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thomas Diesler BPM Product Lead JBoss, a division of Red Hat xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Register EventListener on JbppmContext

by camunda

Meaning what exactly in respect to my question? By the way: Of course I would provide test cases as well... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191128#4191128 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191128

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Register EventListener on JbppmContext

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

regrettably at this point we don't even have the bandwidth to verify the contributions on jbpm3. also we don't yet have the separate branch in place so that we more easily can accept community contributions and validate those before we actually adopt them into the stable branch. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191120#4191120 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191120

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

we discussed exactly the topic element vs attribute a full hour yesterday. and we swinged back and forth between element and attribute. we looked into various bpmn modellers to see what kind of information they had apart from the * diagram size * activity box bounds coordinates, width and height * transition/flow anchor points and bendpoints it turned out to be only color and font in activities. therefor we think it should not be made extensible. and we thought about what the scope was of our graphical designer efforts. g is only for the gpd. other extensions should go into their own extension element / attribute. maybe we should even not put the g declaration in the xsd and cause every element should have an anyAttribute declaration for extensibility. does this reasoning make sense to you as well ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191119#4191119 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191119

15 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - comments on initial xsd jpdl 4

by kukeltje

- tns namespace-prefix should be jpdl - g as an attribute for gpd info will not work. This should be a complex element in its own namespace and allowed under each jpdl element. Maybe there should be more/different gpd elements (transitions need other info than nodes). So either leave it out completely (for now) or do it a little more right View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4191078#4191078 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4191078

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