1 2 Previous Next 16 Replies Latest reply on Sep 6, 2006 10:53 AM by falazar

    splitting the work on the console

    Tom Baeyens Master

       

      "kukeltje" wrote:
      | I was just wondering about the progress? There are some
      | issues assigned to me would probably be the first things you,
      | David, could be working on. Since I have no idea what is
      | going on, and I have other things to do, I did not start
      | working on the webapp based issues.


      there is no internal communication outside of this forum about development progress.

      Use this dev forum as your main mechanism to coordinate work. If afterwards it turns out that jira is useful, we could switch to that. But for now, start with discussing here.

      Another thing we could use to organise work is by working on different menu items. But in the backing beans, we should get some merges in case of concurrent modifications. Should be possible to work like that, i think.

      what do you guys think

        • 1. Re: splitting the work on the console
          Ronald van Kuijk Master

          There are several things that should/could be done. One is to decide if there should be some backwards compatibility (functionality) in the 3.2 webapp. Especially the generated form. IMO it should at least have an automagically generated form. For the simple reason that it gives me a real quick fully functional process to test. I do not want to focus om the forms in the beginning. (see my commments on this in the different jira issues)

          The other thing is to port the admin, or rather the monitor page to facelets.

          Third thing is that there should be a simple transition button tag (or maybe simplify the way it works)

          Forth is that the forms should be versionable (currently if you have two forms in two different processes (or even versions of processes) they clash, or rather, the one that was first wins.

          Funny thing is, that this is a clean separation of 'task' and 'monitor' menu items.

          Oh, yes, some obsolete/orhaned code should be removed from the webapp.

          • 2. Re: splitting the work on the console
            Tom Baeyens Master

            i would like a new structure versus just porting the previous admin pages.

            i would like that the functionality of the new webapp would be get a new design. i didn't find the previous pages easy to use. some concepts were very nice but it should be more grouped, i think.

            e.g. group all the ways to trigger/continue a process execution: send signals to tokens, end tokens, suspend resume tokens, ... Separately, an admin should be able to look at all the tasks related to a process instance and perform different kinds of operations. Separately a page should be there to manage the process variables. type support is the difficult thing to solve properly here.

            • 3. Re: splitting the work on the console
              Tom Baeyens Master

              backwards compatibility with 3.1 webapp is not necessary. since David is now working full time on web app + BAM, he should exceed the functionality of what we had real soon.

              • 4. Re: splitting the work on the console
                Tom Baeyens Master

                indeed, orphaned code still needs to be removed from the beans. i have no clue how to do that. i started the redesign with keeping the original code for reference. now i don't know how to differentiate between used code and orphaned code.

                any suggestions are welcomed.

                i have been thinking of checking the webapplication with clover. then we would have to have a proper jwebunit test coverage. but it will probably take a bit of set up to get it running.

                any other ideas are greatly appreciated.

                • 5. Re: splitting the work on the console
                  Ronald van Kuijk Master

                  new structure, was my idea to, the thing is that the backing beans contain code that could be reused. I should not have used the term 'port' it should indeed be imnplemented in a (slightly) different way, but the functionality should at least be there.

                  • 6. Re: splitting the work on the console
                    David Lloyd Master

                     

                    "kukeltje" wrote:
                    new structure, was my idea to, the thing is that the backing beans contain code that could be reused. I should not have used the term 'port' it should indeed be imnplemented in a (slightly) different way, but the functionality should at least be there.


                    To start, I want to compile all the requirements for the webapp into one place (a wiki page). I have not yet done this because I'm still working on getting up to speed with the internal plumbing of jBPM. I think that I will start the page today based on what forum discussions I've seen thus far and we can go from there.


                    • 7. Re: splitting the work on the console
                      falazar Novice

                      Welcome David. We are pushing forward with our version, so may be able to help with some tasks that occur, and give pointers to eachother as we get to them.

                      A wiki page would be a good start, and we would like to see the functionality of the Monitoring up as quickly as possible. It is agreed that the old one was not the most effeciently formatted, but it did include most all the information needed.

                      I played with it a small amount the other day, but didnt get too far into it yet.

                      James Ratcliff

                      • 8. Re: splitting the work on the console
                        David Loiseau Newbie

                        It seems that the jbpm web application have a new structure each year...

                        It's certainly pertinent, I don't argue about this need, but don't you think that it can be more interesting to develop new functionalities instead of always recoding the same functionalities (with a better structure, ok) ?

                        Honestly I'm a bit frustrated to not see the developments consolidated.


                        Regards,
                        David

                        • 9. Re: splitting the work on the console
                          Tom Baeyens Master

                          i understand your concern.

                          to a large extend, that is just a lack of resources. i consider the updates that we did as maintenance. internal redesigns were necessary to align the jbpm web console with other projects and initiatives. e.g. reusability of components in a portal environment, finally found a proper task form templating mechanism (facelets), ...

                          i hope that David (finally a full time resource for the console webapp) will be able to give the console the proper structure, maintenance and guidence so that the web application becomes a good environment for collaborative development and in which we can consolidate more features.

                          • 10. Re: splitting the work on the console
                            Ronald van Kuijk Master

                            David,

                            I partly agree. The webapp has never been meant to be used as a system to base your own development on. At least not be directly using the code. It's purpose was to serve as an example on how things can be done AND as an app to be used (as is) for demo purposes. Tom is not a jsf expert, so he did some work to have at least something. I have not found the time (busy with forums :-)) to do some development myself.

                            Now (at last or better, fortunately, lets see it from the bright side) Someone is working deticated on this. I trust Tom to have always had the best interest of the users in mind and I trust David to do a good job on this.

                            Regarding the functionality, It should be based on a good foundation, which jsf + jsp was not. jsf + facelets is (imo). So Once this foundation has been laid (in cement this time I hope) We will see new things added, to which you may contribute.

                            Peace,

                            Ronald

                            • 11. Re: splitting the work on the console
                              falazar Novice

                              David,

                              So, an initial question here, getting started with the whole JSF (have to get book next week)
                              I got a basic loop going here:

                               <c:forEach var="processDefinition" items="#{participantBean.allProcessDefinitions}">
                               <tr class="normal" onmouseover="this.className='hovered';" onmouseout="this.className='normal';" onclick="document.all['newExe#{processDefinition.id}\'].click()">
                               <td class="selectable"><h:outputText value="#{processDefinition.name}" /> (<h:outputText value="#{processDefinition.id}" />) </td>
                               <td class="selectable"><h:outputText value="#{processDefinition.version}" /></td>
                               <td class="selectable"><h:outputText value="#{participantBean.allProcessInstances(***PID HERE***)}" /> </td>
                               <td class="selectable">
                               <h:commandLink action="#{participantBean.startNewProcessInstance}" id="newExe#{processDefinition.id}">
                               <f:param name="processDefinitionId" value="#{processDefinition.id}"/>
                               Start It!
                               </h:commandLink>
                               </td>
                               </tr>
                               </c:forEach>
                              


                              This all works fine, shows all processdefinitions, and version and ID's fine.
                              So then in the loop, I would like to call out and get all the processInstances for each of these... And that doesnt seem to be working in any way I can do it.
                              I dont see how to pass a variable back into the function.

                              The function call itself should be fine:
                              
                               // hmm count all active processes instead?
                               // first get count of all processes here, then try it in the webpage, then return list if needed
                               //public int getAllProcessInstances(long processDefinitionId)
                               public String getAllProcessInstances()
                               {
                               //return "12";
                               System.out.println("PID:"+processDefinitionId);
                               return Integer.toString(jbpmBean.getJbpmContext().getGraphSession().findProcessInstances(processDefinitionId).size());
                               }
                              


                              Thanks,
                              James

                              • 12. Re: splitting the work on the console
                                falazar Novice

                                You can put this in another thread actually.. might be more approp.

                                • 13. Re: splitting the work on the console
                                  David Lloyd Master

                                  David, it is my hope to design the new webapp in such a way that not only will existing ideas can be consolidated, but that new ideas can be integrated at the same time. I know it has been frustrating, and I'm afraid there will be a little bit more of a wait yet as I am still trying to get my feet on the ground as far as what we can do vs what we should do. This will take me a bit of time and I can only ask that you be patient with me as I consolodate these ideas. I've stated previously that I am going to attempt to get these requirements all together, while I'm working on exploring the capabilities of the core system.

                                  That said, please feel free to post any ideas/thoughts/brainstorming on what you'd like to see within the new webapp, in this thread or in another if you feel that the discussion warrants a separate thread.

                                  Thanks.

                                  • 14. Re: splitting the work on the console
                                    Tom Baeyens Master

                                    falazar,

                                    i recently saw a proposal on adding parameters to EL. but i can't seem to find it back. so i think it is in the making.

                                    in the meantime, i think you can work your way around it, although my workaround is not as elegant as EL parameters, i think it should work:

                                    instead of looping over jbpm ProcessDefinition objects, you could loop over your process definition wrappers. that bean can then include the method of fetching all the relevant instances.

                                    let me know if that works.

                                    1 2 Previous Next