This content has been marked as final.
Show 6 replies
-
1. Re: Removed Timer/autosave in Revision 4006?
aguizar Feb 27, 2009 10:21 PM (in response to camunda)"camunda" wrote:
In my case, we have an own ExecuteJobCommand, since we do some additional stuff. So I had to change that as well to get the Tests green. Maybe other people do the same stuff?
Yes, the Seam integration also uses a custom job executor and they may rely on the jobs autosaving the process instance."camunda" wrote:
Couldn't we move this to the JobSession.loadJob() method? Now we have to spread this logic to JobExecutor, ExecuteJobCommand's and so on.
Seems like a good proposal, except that loadJob could also be used under contexts that do not require saving the process instance (e.g. a monitoring console). I have the following two proposals:
1. Introduce a loadJobForUpdate method, possibly in JbpmContext (since no XxxSession has any xxxForUpdate method).
2. Forget about it, and just revert.
I'm leaning towards (1). Any thoughts?"camunda" wrote:
I fly to Mexico next week. Maybe we could just meet for beer on around Tuesday 10.03. in Mexico City?
Crap, what a bad coincidence. Right now I'm in Houston, USA, and will be back to Mexico City by March 14th. Perhaps we could meet on your way back? -
2. Re: Removed Timer/autosave in Revision 4006?
camunda Feb 28, 2009 3:20 AM (in response to camunda)except that loadJob could also be used under contexts that do not require saving the process instance
But does this harm or break anything? I always experience a bit confusion of the people about the "forUpdate" methods. And you can forget to use them. Much easier is that is hidden and done automatically...
But introducing the xxxForUpdate on the JbpmContext seems like the second best option for me (and consistent with other jbpm stuff).Perhaps we could meet on your way back?
.
Bummer. No, I fly back from Cancun and don't return to Mexico City (only for transit in the plane). Next time ;-) -
3. Re: Removed Timer/autosave in Revision 4006?
aguizar Feb 28, 2009 2:56 PM (in response to camunda)I always experience a bit confusion of the people about the "forUpdate" methods. And you can forget to use them. Much easier is that is hidden and done automatically...
Agreed. Something to watch for in jBPM 4. In version 3, that is how things are...introducing the xxxForUpdate on the JbpmContext seems like the second best option for me (and consistent with other jbpm stuff).
In the end I decided against it in 3.2.6, because we are about to release. I'll dig on this a bit more in 3.2.7. -
4. Re: Removed Timer/autosave in Revision 4006?
camunda Feb 28, 2009 3:10 PM (in response to camunda)so what is in jbpm 3.2.6?
-
5. Re: Removed Timer/autosave in Revision 4006?
aguizar Mar 2, 2009 12:57 AM (in response to camunda)Each job subclass registers the process instance for autosave, as in your fix for JBPM-1015. I removed the redundant calls to jbpmContext.save() that had been left over.
-
6. Re: Removed Timer/autosave in Revision 4006?
thomas.diesler Mar 2, 2009 4:02 AM (in response to camunda)Bernd, please clone the issue or create a new one.
Generally you cannot commit stuff to an already closed issue - if there is still stuff to do there must be an unresolved issue for it. This is important for documentation purposes in the release notes.
To preserve issue association they can be linked to each other.
I'll dig on this a bit more in 3.2.7
If there is an issue, please create one.