refactoring org.jbpm.bpmn to org.jbpm.bpmn.internal?

[kukeltje]

Anyone agree/disagree?

[camunda]

Is it necessary? Isn't it internal by default at the moment? Just get longer package names :-/

Hmm, but it aligns it with jpdl, eh?

Anyway, I committed the last local changes (without that hack in the PVM), so if you want you ccan go ahead.

P.S: Sorry, I moved a test case from parallelGatewayTest to UserTaskTest

[kukeltje]

Is it necessary? Isn't it internal by default at the moment? Just get longer package names :-/

True

Hmm, but it aligns it with jpdl, eh?

More true ;-)

I'll do this tonight when it is quiet.

Anyway, I committed the last local changes (without that hack in the PVM), so if you want you ccan go ahead.

Cool, we are in good agreement here. Only thing I'll do additionally is to introduce a boolean 'forkAllowed' so this generic method is easily reused in tasks, *all* gateways etc...

P.S: Sorry, I moved a test case from parallelGatewayTest to UserTaskTest

No that's fine. I had the same idea. It's the behaviour of the task, not the gateeway that is important. Otoh, it was a cool test to see that a converging parallel gateway works great without a diverging one.

[kukeltje]

I'm in doubt. I can add a field to BpmnActivity and set that when parsing so the behaviour of forking or not is controlled by that. The other option is to do it in the activity by passing e.g. a boolean parameter to 'leaveBpmnActivity'. I'll do the latter first since that is already in place. Can always be refactored.

[kukeltje]

I'm in doubt. I can add a field to BpmnActivity and set that when parsing so the behaviour of forking or not is controlled by that. The other option is to do it in the activity by passing e.g. a boolean parameter to 'leaveBpmnActivity' or have two methods 'leaveForked' and 'leaveSingle' or something. I'll imlpement the one with the boolean parameterd first since that is already in place. Can always be refactored.