[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss jBPM] - Re: jbpm 4 - Term

[tom.baeyens@jboss.com]

"camunda" wrote : Feedback about jbpm 4 and discussions will go on in this forum, right? Or PVM?
  | 

this forum is good.  pvm separate forum should be deleted but i assume that it is impossible to (re)move forums.  

"camunda" wrote : So I would like to see ProcessInstance and Token again
  | 

The motivation to unify process instance and token is the simple case without concurrency.  When a process has no concurrency, the distinction between process instance and it's root token is artificial and confusing.

On a PVM level, we need to have this unification.  The idea was that on the jPDL level, the distinction would be made to have a JpdlProcessInstance and a JpdlExecution.  But so far, (ok we're only in alpha 1) there was no need for this separation.   

Conceptually, the distinction needs to be there in case of querying.  

"camunda" wrote : but I think that would cause a lot refactoring. What are your thoughts? Or is it decided already anyway?
  | 

I don't think that would cause a lot of refactoring.  It's a matter of where and how this separation in the API should show up.  This is a work in progress and all feedback is welcome.

For starters: the startExecutionXxx methods should be renamed to startProcessInstanceXxx.  But in the services API, I have not yet had a need for a specific ProcessInstance method.  So do we introduce a ProcessInstance that extends from Execution and not adds a method ?

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4205507#4205507

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4205507