1 2 Previous Next 18 Replies Latest reply on Mar 20, 2006 5:27 AM by tom.baeyens Go to original post
      • 15. Re: Adding layout info to the processdefinition file
        tom.baeyens

        ok. i'm convinced that maintaining the graph info in a separate file is better.

        but we only today realized what problems this implies for the designer. when you cut and paste a few nodes in the source view, it's a hell of a job to sync that up in the graphical info view.

        but koen will solve that... right koen ? :-)

        regards, tom.

        • 16. Re: Adding layout info to the processdefinition file
          koen.aers

          Of course I will... ;-)

          Regards,
          Koen

          • 17. Re: Adding layout info to the processdefinition file
            gavin.king

            :-)

            • 18. Re: Adding layout info to the processdefinition file
              tom.baeyens

               

              "gavin.king@jboss.com" wrote:
              I think the current CVS rev of GPD that I have been playing with does it Just Perfect by using:

              foo.jpdl.xml
              .gpd.foo.jpdl.xml
              bar.jpdl.xml
              .gpd.bar.jpdl.xml

              This is just like the old convention for laying out Hibernate mapping documents next to the mapped classes. It's a good way.


              I want to replace this naming scheme to obligatory 1 directory per process.

              There will be way too many files in a process definition, making the above naming scheme a clumsy one.

              afaik, this still complies with Gavins main concern that in the examples, the processdefinition.xml should be separatable from other types of information.

              - processdefinition.xml
              - gpd.xml
              - forms.xml
               (coupling between task names in the processdefinition.xml
               and the form files)
              - 1 form for each task
              - deployment.xml
              - processimage.jpg
              - ...
              


              If we all have to do this based on .{PROCESSNAME}.conventionname.extention i don't think that would be easy to manage. Not all the files have a fixed name: The task forms have to get a user defined name. Prefixing those is not easy to manage.

              For different process languages i could consider different conventions. E.g. for jPDL 1 directory per process and for pageflow, we could adopt the .gpd.myprocess.jpdl.xml naming scheme.

              In case you only have 2 files (processdefinition.xml and gpd.xml) this 1-directory-per-process might seem overkill. But offering multiple naming and packaging schemes in the jPDL language alone is confusing, IMHO.

              regards, tom.

              1 2 Previous Next