[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: task assignee vs owner
by KrisVerlaenen
anonymous wrote : i think for most use cases their lifecycle model is actually overly complex. that's why we made our lifecycle pluggable.
First it was too simplistic and now it's too complex? ;)
The basic simple life cycle is:
- someone creates a task for an actor
- actor that needs to execute the task starts the task when he starts executing it
- actor completes the task once he's done
Doesn't sound that complex to me?
And if you really want to change the life cycle (out of the scope of the WS-HT spec), you can do as well in our component (we use MVEL configuration to define possible state transitions and their effect).
anonymous wrote : You're always welcome to take our task component, leverage it and help to build any use cases that it might not yet support.
I'm talking about collaboration, not this one-way you can use and improve whatever we have. Do we want to work an a shared human task component or not, and if so, what are the requirements / restrictions? Then we can decide what would be the best way to move forward?
Kris
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4210412#4210412
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4210412
17 years, 2 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: task assignee vs owner
by camunda
Two quick remarks:
1) Supporting WS-HumanTask would be a interesting improvement for jbpm! But I also agree with Tom, that it doesn't fit in any case, so having a pluggable life cycle is the best option. And to model that lifecycle with jpdl itself would be a natural fit in the jbpm infrastructure I guess.
And yes, I faced that requirements at least a couple of times, some customers did really advanced human task management ;-)
2.) Having a joined Human Task Management component of jbpm and drools would be a very good thing! I think it doesn't make too much sense to develop that twice in JBoss. And it would be much better to have one user interface as well (for every component creating Human Tasks in the JBoss SOA ;-)).
And having two components always provokes the question why the both implementations are there.
But maybe this involves politics which team is responsible for it?
And personally I don't know the Drools Human Task Management component yet, so I cannot really judge how good it fits for the jbpm requirements. And I get the feeling that Human task Management is more in the direction of BPM than BRM, so I see jBPM responsible for it. And Drools shouldn't even need persistence in the most common use cases for a Rule Engine, different to jbpm.
Just my two cents
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4210373#4210373
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4210373
17 years, 2 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: task assignee vs owner
by kukeltje
Tom,
Yes, this usecase is useful.
But I have another one. In many of the processes in the companiy I worked for, it is required to send out an xml message to the party that performed a task which lead to this specific task. e.g.:
- You ask me (or someone if the systems decides who it gets assigned to) to repair a car
- I accept to do it, or reject it
In case there is no other wait-state in between (one task directly leads to the next task after a 'signal'), you can set some variable on the next task with the role/actor/... value of this former task. When other waitstates are in between (e.g. an external service has to be called async) it does not work. So I added my own tag to the task in the processdefinition without customizing the taskInstance (I just read the xml from the process archive). This tag is a reference to the swimlane that had the previous task. It is kind of like a business transaction then in ebBP.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4210369#4210369
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4210369
17 years, 2 months
[Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: task assignee vs owner
by tom.baeyens＠jboss.com
"KrisVerlaenen" wrote : Tom, what about working together on a shared task component with the Drools team? Our human task component already supports use cases like this (and many more).
|
| Kris
i had a quick look at the drools task component before. model looked too simplistic for the use cases that we have. and it also didn't look appropriate to support the human interaction management features that we also want to incorporate. and it would be harder to make the drools task component fit into our architecture.
on the other hand, what would be the requirements for drools to collaborate with our task component ?
we have pluggable task lifecycle to allow for the human task lifecycle as well as a much simpler default lifecycle.
we also have hierarchical subtasks, comments and roles
i've also integrated jbpm with the jboss identity component. so all of our task component will be based on that integration as well.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4210341#4210341
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4210341
17 years, 2 months