[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: Potential enhancement to jbpm

[tom.baeyens@jboss.com]

"kukeltje" wrote : anonymous wrote : the annotations are only a way to make it extensible. 
  | No, I disagree. I implemented (a long time ago) some code in jbpm (my local branch) that you could use to extend process files with your own tags, just in a different NAMESPACE (I know you hate those, but I hate attribute value solutions MUCH MORE ;-)). Remarks like: namespaces are difficult are rubbish. I could draw up some small examples that anybody could understand (even my manager did) but the decision is up to the you guys.... I'll concede with whatever comes out...

properties and namespaces don't exclude each other.

in fact, i don't have anything against namespaces.  i just want that it is also possible without.  since i don't have the time to work out the solution with and without namespaces, i opt to build the solutions without namespaces first.

if someone would contribute proper namespace handling (so that it still works without), that would be great.  only if a decent test suite is worked out, this can be maintained.

for a start, i know that the dom parser that we have in pvm supports namespaces.  

so go for it :-)



View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4149938#4149938

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4149938