[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Thinking about transition attrs

[brittm]

re: "confirm='true'"
anonymous wrote : that is UI. the task form ui only can do so much. we can keep adding features till it is as rich as JSF+Facelets+RichFaces... if it would be added, it should be done in the Facelets form document.
The problem here is that it is not up to the UI designer to determine what should require a confirmation.  This is the domain of business analyst/process designer.  

We have nearly 200 tasks over more than 20 processes (and we're not done).  We work in a rapidly evolving environment and need a way to tell the UI developer which transitions need a confirmation based on their impact on the process--some way other than handing him a spreadsheet of 100+ process/node/transition combinations to keep track of.  

To keep things sane we'll either have to break with schema valid jpdl, or use a naming convention--something like if the transition name starts with a "+", don't display the "+" and require a confirmation.

The same thing is true with restricted access.  We're already blocking visibility of transitions like 'administrative cancel' and 'retry integration' by prefixing them with an "_".  Its a way to say "admin only" without having to know how the UIs define that role.

But parsing transition names to figure out which type they are is a poor solution.  Sure, we can build our own configuration files/tables to sit along side of jBPM, but then we're just repeating 'process/node/transition' mappings over and over, and are operating outside the scope of versioning.

Both of these items are configuration flags that specify how a transition should behave, not how that behavior should be implemented.

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4053167#4053167

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4053167