[JBoss jBPM] - Is this a bug or is it intentional
by bentins
I'm running jbpm 3.1.1 on my site for a long time. Today I tried to see what I need to do in order to upgrade to 3.2.3. Aside from migrating the DB, I found several things. One of the things is something I submitted a jira issue jbpm-696 (which was accepted as a fix and closed).
In FieldInstantiator line 140 - 141:
else if (Map.class.isAssignableFrom(type)) {
| value = getMap(propertyElement, new HashMap());
This makes the developer of an actionHandler use only the HashMap type as his map type, otherwise if you use hashtable you won't be able to set it. What I suggested back on that fix (applies also to collection types) is to write the code like this:
else if (Map.class.isAssignableFrom(type)) {
| value = getMap(propertyElement, (Map)type.newInstance());
this allows the developer to use any kind of map type even his own implementation.
My question is: Is it intentional not to allow other map or collection types or is it just an oversight?
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159345#4159345
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159345
18 years, 1 month
[JBoss jBPM] - Re: Tutorial or guide to create instances of processes in ja
by lblaauw
Ok,
I am also sorta debating on what route to take on this scenario. So we have deployed jBPM as the ear file including the console and the EJBs since we need the timerservices to be ejb timers this seemed a reasonable approach.
I have been reading a lot in the documentation and also the sources and tests but still I cannot figour out how to go about and create a server based webservice to expose jBPM services like getting taskLists, proces Tasks etc etc.
Basically I can see two options right now and I would love some feedback on both of these:
Option 1 would be to just approach the CommandService EJB from my webservice, as far as i can see it that would use ONE configuration set ie jbpm conf xml, hibernate xml etc etc. This however does mean we get extra overhead in using EJB(2)...
Option 2, would be to use seperate configuration files all together, effectively meaning we bypass the whole configuration allready deployed on the JBoss server and user another one on the client. Basically as i can see this means we just share the jBPM database then ??
Or are there better other options that I just missed so far ?
Greetings,
Leo
"kukeltje" wrote : the JMX bean as it was is not used anymore since it made jBPM somewhat JBoss AS dependant. You can easily circumvent this, but the docs also would not be generic. Besides that, you could not package actionhandler classes is your own war/ear then, but only server generic or in the processarchive. These were the reasons to abandon the MBean
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159254#4159254
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159254
18 years, 1 month