December 2008 - jbpm-dev - Jboss List Archives

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Task Management component?

by kukeltje

Ok, did some digging.... seam uses a mock servlet/facescontext to achieve rendering when not done via a direct jsf request. So it seems (pun intended) (parts of) seam (are) is needed if using facelets templating is what is what is on the requirements list. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195448#4195448 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195448

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Task Management component?

by kukeltje

Ehh.... Tom... facelets is related to JSF. It is about rendering components to something. HTML for webpages, but it could also be wap, xml, text or anything. And the way seam uses it for email is just rendering... not to a screen, but rendering never the less and therefor also done in the jsf rendering phase. So I'm e.g. not sure how using facelets for rendering an email would work if it is e.g. done for a reminder... Maybe some of the Seam guys could comment on this It is possible though to write JSF components in GWT by using e.g. http://unrealities.com/seamgwt. Still, we should first make clear what we want and when. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195362#4195362 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195362

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - GWT console reports

by heiko.braun＠jboss.com

I just finished the first cut of the birt integration: https://www.jboss.org/community/docs/DOC-13191 It's a thin layer atop of the BIRT report engine that allows access to reports through HTTP. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195360#4195360 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195360

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Task Management component?

by kukeltje

Pure xsd's is to limited, e.g. no option to specify readonly or specify labels (unless e.g., using annotations) but there is a technology independent (rendering wise) form definition, xforms. There have been multiple posts on this. It is the rendering of these definitions and the actual usage (in the console, but also in user application imo). That could of course be done runtime in the console, but it is also about customizability. In all a very broad subject that me might start defining on a wiki page and discuss here. anonymous wrote : then we could easily build applications that interact with the task management by any means. JSF could then be one of them. | Well, yes and no... we could but to what extend are we going to support components for this that can be used by end-users? Or won't we? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195359#4195359 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195359

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Creatiing new pooled actors for every task instance

by kukeltje

The pooled actors can, ass you state be more than one id (e.g. as you have in a group). It can also be a list of individuals (I do not advise this to anyone, but it can be done). which can change over time and set via the api. But with your proposal that should still be possible. anonymous wrote : What the query hides is the MANY-TO-MANY table that is part of the hibernate mapping definition: | That is why I missed it, I try to stay away as much as possible from the hibernate mappings. I doubt this will be changed in jBPM 3, but for the task component of jBPM4 it is certainly something to keep in mind (maybe Alex/Tom have already simplified this) Thanks for the feedback View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195344#4195344 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195344

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Task Management component?

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

Adrian, those are indeed very interesting scenarios. we could set up a module in the jbpm4 trunk for this. would that be a good starting point for you ? how about library dependencies ? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195309#4195309 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195309

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Task Management component?

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

Facelets is not tied to JSF. It's a template technology. Seam uses it to render emails, for example. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195297#4195297 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195297

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Task Management component?

by heiko.braun＠jboss.com

anonymous wrote : | a consequence of taking both decisions would be that we have to show facelets task forms in a GWT based console. but i don't see a problem with that. do you ? | Yes, I do see a problem with that. IMO the forms and the data associated with task management shouldn't be implementation specific. JSF is already a particular implementation and as results cannot be easily used with the console. If we would instead focus on data input and output sets to tasks, backed by a data type description (i.e. xsd) then we could easily build applications that interact with the task management by any means. JSF could then be one of them. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195256#4195256 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195256

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Creatiing new pooled actors for every task instance

by stringaling

I have no issue with assignment at run time. In my mind the assignment is the join between the JBPM_POOLEDACTOR, and JBPM_TASKINSTANCE via the JBPM_TASKACTORPOOL. Where I have issue is creating assignee's (POOLEDACTOR) when there are defined as part of the process definition. The fact that I declare a swimlane that defines a pooled_actor such as: | <swimlane name="Fraud"> | <assignment pooled-actors="Fraud User"/> | </swimlane> | would be a pretty good indication that this not going to change. OK - I do understand that the list of pooled-actors can be determined at runtime via an expression, and in this case there is a need to store the actor at run times. But then why bother with the MANY-TO-MANY join then. Why not put the instance_id directly on the JBPM_POOLEDACTOR table. The same functionality could be achieved then with 2 joins instead of 3. Here is an example of the query: | <query name="TaskMgmtSession.findPooledTaskInstancesByActorId"> | <![CDATA[ | select distinct ti | from org.jbpm.taskmgmt.exe.PooledActor pooledActor | join pooledActor.taskInstances ti | where pooledActor.actorId = :swimlaneActorId | and ti.actorId is null | and ti.isSuspended != true | and ti.isOpen = true | ]]> | </query> | (from hibernate.queries.hbm.xml) What the query hides is the MANY-TO-MANY table that is part of the hibernate mapping definition: | ... | <set name="pooledActors" | cascade="all" | table="JBPM_TASKACTORPOOL"> | <key column="TASKINSTANCE_" foreign-key="FK_TASKACTPL_TSKI"/> | <many-to-many class="org.jbpm.taskmgmt.exe.PooledActor" column="POOLEDACTOR_" /> | ... | </set> | (from TaskInstance.hbm.xml) | <set name="taskInstances" inverse="true" table="JBPM_TASKACTORPOOL"> | <key column="POOLEDACTOR_" foreign-key="FK_TSKACTPOL_PLACT"/> | <many-to-many class="org.jbpm.taskmgmt.exe.TaskInstance" column="TASKINSTANCE_" /> | </set> | (from PooledActor.hbm.xml) The three joins is compounded by a 4th join that I need to do to properly implement paging within our application. :( View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195176#4195176 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195176

17 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: task component interface comments

by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com

TaskBuilder is definitely not good. Task with setter is the way to go. If we would not like the Task return value on the setters, then we should make them void and disable the fluent interface. But that brings me to the point that I didn't see a good argument against return Task from the setters. the JavaBean spec and reflection frameworks arguments don't make sense in my opinion. But it is not a big deal. Alejandro, you take your pick of the return values for the setters. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4195174#4195174 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4195174

17 years, 4 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 December 2008