[JBoss jBPM] - Custom HBM files.
by Toriton
Hi all,
i'm looking for an help ,about configuring new mapping resources for Hibernate in JBPM.
I'm using Jboss 4.2.2 GA and JBPM 3.3.1 GA with Oracle 10g.
There is any example on how configure a new hbm.xml to use for my persistance?.
I have some problems to create the PAR archive from eclipse because Eclipse seem have some problem to create output folders.
It ignore all xml files copying in the bin folder only the image process ,and the class files.
Ignoring gpd.xml -processdefinition.xml- all Hibernate configuration files.
I'm looking for some example to understand where my custom hbm.xml files need to be mapped and where they have to stay to be loaded correctly.
I tried adding them in the Hibernate.extra.cfg.xml, or directly in hibernate.cfg.xml, but the problem is that jbpm can't find the entity class mapped in the hbm.xml, in classpath. This is correct, the class is in the par archive, and is not deployed still.
Have to deploy par file and entity classes apart?
Any useful link will be appreciated :).
Thanks in advance.
T.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4216128#4216128
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4216128
17 years, 1 month
[JBoss jBPM] - Re: Tasks need to done by multiple users
by bradsdavis
@Ronald,
Just so I can think about the difference in approaches, what are your thoughts on why it would be more difficult to do certain exit strategies with my suggested dynamic task-instance approach?
I guess the join would make sure everyone completed before leaving the fork-task-join block, but doesn't signal="last" on the task-node accomplish the same thing? Additionally, doesn't using the signal= on the task node give more flexibility than a join would, which would fix the user to a pattern of waiting for everyone to complete before moving forward?
The last point of my implementation is that the graph would not need to change with the dynamic task-instances since it would be an action attached to the task node.
But then again, I haven't tried to implement this myself. So, I am wondering if there is a technical hurdle here, or what your thoughts are for why it would be more difficult.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4216077#4216077
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4216077
17 years, 1 month