June 2008 - jbpm-users - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss jBPM] - Re: HOw to create user so that no one can see others tasks..

by alok0007_07

i do the following for new group and user creation : 1) create a group of name 'guest' insert into JBPM_ID_GROUP (ID_,CLASS_,NAME_,TYPE_) values(812,'G','guest','security-role'); 2) Then create a user of name 'user' insert into JBPM_ID_USER (ID_,CLASS_,NAME_,EMAIL_,PASSWORD_) values(123,'U','guest','guest(a)sample.domain','shipper'); 3) Then insert into membership table insert into JBPM_ID_MEMBERSHIP (ID_,CLASS_,USER_,GROUP_) values(52,'M',812, 123); But it gives the same error as i mentioned ... Is anything I left to do ... Please suggest....waiting for reply.. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159444#4159444 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159444

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss jBPM] - Re: job executor explained in a nutshell

by kadlecp

I must rewrite my last but one reply. I was trying it ones more how it behaves and the blocking I was writing about is not truth. Hello Alex, anonymous wrote : | No updates will be ever lost with higher isolation levels. The database will ensure that no two transactions that update the same data item can proceed. | Yes, I agree. If we set transaction to repeatable read isolation level, in my opinion optimistic locking does not work, because during whole transaction we always read same version of our row. The application can not see that another commited tx updated some row (bacause we have repeatable read). I think that optimistic locking needs non-repeatable read to work but jbpm docs says opposite. Regards Pavel View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159422#4159422 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159422

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss jBPM] - Re: job executor explained in a nutshell

by kadlecp

I think that optimistic locking needs READ COMMITTED isolation level of transactions. Nothing more, nothing less. Pavel View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159414#4159414 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159414

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss jBPM] - Re: job executor explained in a nutshell

by kadlecp

Hello Alex, anonymous wrote : | No updates will be ever lost with higher isolation levels. The database will ensure that no two transactions that update the same data item can proceed. | Yes, I agree. But the db will block the second update until transaction with first update commits. There is no need to use optimistic locking with repeatable read isolation level because optimistic locking does not work with repeatable read. If I understand it well, we have optimistic locking to prevent conflicting updates. We do not want to send two conflicting updates to db because db (in my case Oracle) will block the second update. We want application could see that another committed tx changed our row (that we already read) and we want to rollback our tx immediately (without blocking). If we set transaction to repeatable read isolation level, in my opinion optimistic locking does not work, because during whole transaction we always read same version of our row. The application can not see that another commited tx updated some row. (bacause we have repeatable read). I think that optimistic locking needs non-repeatable read to work but jbpm docs says opposite. Regards Pavel View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159410#4159410 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159410

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss jBPM] - Re: Is this a bug or is it intentional

by alex.guizar＠jboss.com

I see problems with both the current code and your proposed fix. The current code fails for the declaration below, because it will try to assign a HashMap to a Hashtable. Hashtable keyCodes; The proposed fix actually makes things worse because the following declaration is the common case. Class.newInstance() fails for interfaces. Map keyCodes; The definitive solution should address both scenarios. I'll reopen the issue and add this comment. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159378#4159378 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159378

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss jBPM] - Re: Workflow process visual rapresentation

by kukeltje

anonymous wrote : Does the JBPM Console implement such functionality No View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159363#4159363 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159363

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss jBPM] - Re: HOw to create user so that no one can see others tasks..

by kukeltje

post 1: search the forum, wiki etc... post 2: something is misconfigured, most likely a role or membership you forgot View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159362#4159362 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159362

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss jBPM] - Re: Tutorial or guide to create instances of processes in ja

by kukeltje

both are 'valid', but you can also look at jBPM 3.2.3. Preliminary support for webservices is there. But you have the overhead of webservices without the advantage of transactions like with ejb View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159361#4159361 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159361

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss jBPM] - Re: Could not send mail

by kukeltje

or a flaky firewall, or .... View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159360#4159360 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159360

17 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss jBPM] - Re: job executor explained in a nutshell

by alex.guizar＠jboss.com

I find this statement wildly odd-sounding: anonymous wrote : In the time gap between Transaction start time and the UPDATE/DELETE statement there could be commited changes that will be lost (Lost Updates). No updates will be ever lost with higher isolation levels. The database will ensure that no two transactions that update the same data item can proceed. With "lost" they seem to mean unavailable to the isolated transaction. However, that is exactly what is needed for the job executor to operate properly. Note that the REPEATABLE_READ suggestion is not a rule. Isolation levels are implemented differently in each database and in some databases it may be possible to use a lower isolation level that works. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4159358#4159358 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4159358

17 years, 9 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-users June 2008