2 Replies Latest reply on Feb 8, 2010 11:33 PM by Patricia B

    jBPM 4.3 - possible problems with the jPDL Eclipse editor?

    Patricia B Newbie

      I am working on an application which currently uses jBPM 3.3.1. I intend to migrate to jBPM 4.3. For this, I used the migration tool, which translated the jpdl xml file to the new format. One problem that I found during migration was that the decision element was not completely migrated  - namely, the handler element was missing from the migrated definition, and I added it manually afterwards. I attached the new jPDL xml that resulted after the migration.


      Apart from that, the main problem that I ran  into is related to the visual editor. Using the Eclipse plugin provided by JBPM 4.3, whenever I edit the process definition using the Diagram view, all the <java/> elements nested within <transition/> elements are removed. If I edit it using the Source view of the jPDL editor, whithout touching the Diagram view, all the <java/> elements are preserved. The process definition having the java elements for transitions seems to be executed ok. I am using Eclipse - Galileo (Build id: 20090920-1017), and Ubuntu 9.10.


      I got the same result using the examples that comes with jBPM 4.3. If I manually add the <java/> element to a transition using the Source view, it works fine, but as soon as I modify the process definition using the Diagram view, all the <java/> elements are removed. I also noticed that there is somewhat of a disconnect between the behaviour of the Diagram view and the Source view for the jPDL editor. For example, there is no way to specify java tasks for transitions on the diagram view, whereas on the Source view, one can edit the xml file, to add <java/> elements for transitions, or any other activities i.e. event listener, etc.


      My main question is whether removing java elements for transitions, whenever using the Eclipse jPDL editor, Diagram view is a simple issue, or is it intentional - i.e. transitions containing java tasks will not be supported moving forward. The latter does not seem very intuitive to me, since the migration tool produces exactly this type of structure. If that is correct though, then how should the process definition look like? Any feedback/comment is very welcome.