Okay, I checked the Remote configuration now. Quite cool! Pretty nice for normal use cases
I think.
I still have some concerns:
1.) For Marketing reasons I would like to see EJB 3 inside of it. Even if you don't
use it directly, EJB 2.1 is just "odd old" ;-) Too unsexy for jbpm 4. Maybe not
a high priority, but still. And as Jorram pointed out, the developers supporting it or
people trying to figure out transaction problems or whatever have a harder live here.
2.) I wouldn't completly let got of the commands. Zwo use cases from my last projects
of a big customer, where I still would prefer them:
a) Batch Commands: We just added a thin layer around the commands in order to be able to
call them in a batch. The same command, but just with different parameters (e.g. from a
csv). So in one batch you could execute a couple of thound commands (sync or async.
Normally async with a big amount). Would be possible with the current API as well, but
was/is much easier by using the commands directly.
b) Chained Commands: Think of the use case, where you have to fix an instance. E.g. you
have to cancel it, start a different "fixing" process for it, maybe jump to a
special node and execute a Groovy script to fix process variables. Okay, maybe not the
best example here, but we had business requirements to do stuff like this. Therefro we
introduced a CommandChain which can execute other commands IN ONE transaction. (Clue is
you can execute the chain as batch :-)). If you use the remote ProcessEngine it executes
every call in its own transaciton, right?
And again, I think it is even easier to implement with the commands, than with the API...
This is why I still like the commands. But maybe I am just too used to it? So if you have
good points agaionst it just let me know :-)
Thoughts?
Cheers
Bernd
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4238174#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...