[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Commands: Maybe result should be part of the Command-Obj

[camunda]

Hi Tom,

anonymous wrote : 
  | by keeping object, we still can use the suggested approach, but we don't force it on all the commands. 
  | 

Thats right. But you also loose the typed interface (sorry, I like it very much if the compiler tells me errors, and not the ClassCastExceptions). 

The problem with JavaDoc is, it is not garanteed to have correct informations there. You have no way to check that automatically. Because we are tied to Java 1.4, we can also not introduce some Annotation which specifies the return value, which is somehow also ok, I think.

anonymous wrote : 
  | with this you introduce the overhead of introducing a typed member for the result in *all* the commands, while the map containing multiple results was only needed for a few. 
  | 
I think, this overhead is really small. Normally, I have only some longs or Strings in the Command as a parameter...

Maybe one other advantage could be, if you really have some asynchronous messaging architecture, where you just fire the command and get the result back later, there it woul dbe a real advantage to have all the parameters together with the result. But okay, in this scenario, you can build a easy workaround, I know....

But one argument at the moment is maybe, the Interface is already released with jbpm 3.2. Changing it now is maybe not the best idea. 

I have the problem at the moment, how to return a ProcessInstance TOGETHER with all the logs, so I think, I will return the Command itself in the GetProcessInstanceCommand, ok? Or you prefer the Map?

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4037028#4037028

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4037028