[jboss-user] [JBoss jBPM] - Re: jbpm-console + versioned seam backing bean
do-not-reply at jboss.com
Fri Dec 21 06:42:27 EST 2007
I figure out that for my needs, with all the Seam features, I is easier for me to write my own application instead of trying to adapt the bpm-console.
I have started from the seam-todo example. I have added a xhtml form with field to fill for the todo task. This form use a backing bean and it work fine.
>From there I have remove the todo process definition from the todo example and create a xhtml page that allows me to deploy process definition.
I have deploy a first version of my todo process definition. this process definition include the processdefinition.xml and the backing bean in the par file
I have start the process and it use the backing bean that come from the par file!
I have deploy a second version of my todo process definition. this process is identical to the previous version except that I have modify the string that is printed from one of the backing bean method. I start a process of this second process definition version.
I realize that both the process of the version one and the process of the version two are using the first version of the backing bean.
Like it is possible to do in the bpm console, I want my user to be able to deploy in my application new process and new process version of already deployed processes.
for a process definition, the versionning is supported for:
the process definition (xml file)
the action handler
and the task xhtml form (there is a good example on how to do this in the bpm-console)
however, a xhtml form to be fully functional must need backing bean.
1. Is this supported and I am doing something wrong in my test to use backing bean?
If it is not supported, is it a planned feature? I will look into the code but I don't think I could easily had this feature myself.
2. An alternative would be to have a ear for every version of the process definition. This ear will include the backing bean for a specific version of the process definition. This should work fine however, following my limited testing on this, the startup of jboss is significantly longer if I deploy a lot of ear.
What is your though about this alternative?
An Phong Do
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4114951#4114951
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4114951
More information about the jboss-user