[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
AW: AW: AW: [jwt-dev] Bonita Designer use cases and requirements
|
Hi Rodrigue,
the current JWT palette consists of a static and a dynamic part. The static
part contains the standard entries like the nodes and references while the
dynamic part allows to create references to existing elements, e.g. you
define a new role 'x' and an entry is added to the palette which creates a
new reference to 'x'. Both parts are however subject to the view, i.e. their
elements are hidden if configured so in the view and in the future their
names will also be read from the view and maybe the visibility in the
palette will be decoupled from the visibility in the editor. In theory, it
would be possible to replace the palette with other implementations but the
question is if this is really necessary or if we could put everything in the
view configuration which would provide a much easier way to customize the
palette.
Regards,
Chris
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Im Auftrag von Rodrigue Le Gall
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. November 2008 13:51
> An: Java Workflow Toolbox
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [jwt-dev] Bonita Designer use cases and
> requirements
>
> Hi,
>
> In fact the Bonita use cases identify that we need a concept of
> PaletteFactory customizable for each view (like the figure Factory).
>
> A Palette is a very simple composant and it is acceptable and easy to
> write a PaletteFactory if we need to customize it. So JWT must provide
> a default PaletteFactory (with the actual logic of hidding some
> component by using the view configuration), but to be very flexible
> anybody must be able to provide a PaletteFactory with its own logic
> (hardcoded, configurable, ...).
>
> thoughts?
>
> --
> Rodrigue
>
> *Orchestra*, The BPEL open source project: http://orchestra.ow2.org
> *Bonita*, The XPDL open source project: http://bonita.ow2.org
>
>
>
>
>
> Christian Saad a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > In order to show concrete elements in a more abstract view, the
> > elements could be set to be visible in the abstract view but
> replacing
> > their figure and caption with the figure/caption of the abstract
> type.
> > Maybe we could also add an option to hide certain elements in the
> > palette, so that the fake abstractcontrolnode (really forknode)
> doesn't show up in the palette.
> >
> > And for replacing abstract concepts with concrete ones, I think that
> > this could become quite tedious for the user if the control really
> has
> > to be removed and a new one should be added since connections and
> > already set attributes must be restored (if this is the way it is
> done
> > until now?). I'm thinking that we could provide a way to do this
> > automatically, e.g. by offering an option in the context menu that
> > shows all concrete subtypes and automatically changes the type of the
> > EMF model element internally to the concrete type while keeping all
> existing preferences.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >>> FL:
> >>>
> >>> Concerning the abstract activity node: the metamodel already
> >>> includes
> >>>
> >> some
> >>
> >>> abstract nodes such as ExecutableNode or ControlNode that might be
> >>>
> >> used for
> >>
> >>> that purpose. For the moment they are themself abstract classes and
> >>>
> >> not
> >>
> >>> shown in the palette or elsewhere, but it might be possible to add
> >>>
> >> those in
> >>
> >>> one view and remove the concrete subclasses from this (business)
> >>> view
> >>>
> >> and to
> >>
> >>> refine these abstract classes in a more technical view afterwards!?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yes, it's what we did. By choosing elements to be displayed into the
> >> created view-file (Business/Technical) it becomes possible to
> decide
> >> elements that are present into the palette of the two views
> within
> >> the editor.
> >> For instance ControlNode can be displayed in the palette of both
> >> views (we simply added ControlNodeFigure ...) since fork/join node
> is
> >> only displayed in the palette of the Technical design.
> >> But the following use case cannot be realized:
> >> - create controlNode in Business view
> >> - switch to Technical view and "replace" controleNode by forkNode
> >> - switch again to Business view : the forkNode is no more visible
> in
> >> this view. We would want to keep this type of element visible (even
> >> the palette of business view does not contain this element).
> >> In other word after refinement of the abstract class in a more
> >> technical view switching back to the less technical view does not
> >> prevent to display the refined element.
> >> May be this possibility already exists ?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Concerning "activity, gateways, events, connections and artifacts.
> >>>
> >> Should
> >>
> >>> all of them extend ActivityNode":
> >>> No, definitely not. A connection can't be an ActivityNode of
> course.
> >>>
> >> As
> >>
> >>> already mentioned the ExecutableNode might be the activity, the
> >>>
> >> ControlNode
> >>
> >>> the Gateway. Events are already included in the metamodel but
> >>> without
> >>>
> >> any
> >>
> >>> concrete subclasses, those will be needed in the future anyway, as
> >>>
> >> soon as
> >>
> >>> we decided what kind of events we want to model (hopefully not the
> >>>
> >> whole set
> >>
> >>> of BPMN which makes it quite confusing). For artifacts we currently
> >>> distinguish between Role, Application and Data, which can be
> refined
> >>>
> >> via
> >>
> >>> aspects and those artifacts are connected with a specific edge to
> >>> the Action/ExecutableNode.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> 3. We have already talked about the implication of this
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> multiplicity edges on
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> a given node. As far as I understand, the mode is flexible and
> >>>>> does
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> not
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> constraint this. The graphical layer does constraint action to
> >>>>> have
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> only one
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> incoming and one outgoing transition (as UML-AD specifies).
> >>>>>
> >> However,
> >>
> >>>> if we
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> provide our own graphical layer (by extension or modification),
> >>>>> all
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> the tools
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> should still continue to work normally if they are based on the
> >>>>> model
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> and not
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> on the graphical layer model. Right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes, they "should" ;) The only way to be sure is
> >>>> * 1. to test them, since they have only been tested on workflow
> >>>> models that have been created with a constrained WE till now
> >>>> * to have validation rules that validation engines can enforce.
> >>>> That's why I was talking about moving such constraints to a
> >>>>
> >> validation
> >>
> >>>> engine (ex. EMF's), and then why not allow vendors to customize
> the
> >>>> set of validation rules for their own use (profile). However, if
> it
> >>>> has to be done in October I'd simply make the existing edge
> >>>>
> >> constraint
> >>
> >>>> "disablable" using an extension point. Chris, what do you think ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> This shouldn't be a problem. For the time being, I think for the
> >>> time
> >>>
> >> being
> >>
> >>> we could also simply read the constraint for the maximum number of
> >>> incoming/outgoing edges from plugin.properties where it can be
> >>> easily adapted by vendors.
> >>>
> >>> FL:
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, another thought would be to define the maximum number of
> >>>
> >> incoming and
> >>
> >>> outgoing edges for each element by the view-file? So, a business
> >>>
> >> manager
> >>
> >>> would be allowed to ignore such things as control nodes and simply
> >>>
> >> used
> >>
> >>> nodes and edges (as he would love to do), but in the technical view
> >>>
> >> could
> >>
> >>> then be changed and more semantics via different control nodes
> added.
> >>> Probably this needs also a validation mechanism when switching from
> >>>
> >> one view
> >>
> >>> to another. What do you think?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> 5. We would like many different ways to display properties.
> One
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> of them is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> inside the task itself. There is a strict mapping between the
> >>>>> palette
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> and the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> model. Therefore, how can we modify the way things (and in our
> >>>>> case
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> actions)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> are rendered just by extension?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Properties are already displayed in the PropertyView. There you
> can
> >>>> create a custom editor for a given property (extension point by
> >>>> Mickaël), or a whole new tab (by Chris), see wiki. You can make
> >>>> them also appear in the Outline by changing the
> >>>> ModelContentOutlinePage's content and label provider.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or do you mean, display properties within the diagram, like above
> >>>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>> task icon ?
> >>>> Maybe the UML View sample plugin (see bugzilla) is interesting...
> >>>> Chris,
> >>>> any idea ?
> >>>>
> >>>> And could your describe concrete examples of such different ways ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> A concrete example would definitly be good in order to get this
> >>>
> >> requirement
> >>
> >>> right.
> >>> Basically, views allow to replace JWT's internal draw2d figures
> with
> >>>
> >> your
> >>
> >>> own, so you could implement a new figure that visualizes some of
> its
> >>> element's properties.
> >>>
> >>> FL:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I think that would be the way you were asking for. In
> >>> additional plugins you can say that an already existing figure
> shall
> >>> be replaced
> >>>
> >> by a
> >>
> >>> new figure and this new figure can be constructed however you'd
> like
> >>>
> >> it. So,
> >>
> >>> if you do not only want to have the name of the action in it, but
> >>>
> >> also some
> >>
> >>> properties, be it. If you'd prefer to show a monkey instead of
> >>>
> >> anything, so
> >>
> >>> just design one ;-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> We are just starting to get knowledge of EMG/GEF stuff (which is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> quite huge)!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Some questions may sound very simple! All our excuses for that!
> >>>>> ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Well, I'm not sure there is any simple one ;) Anyway, we'll try to
> >>>> make it easy to get in. And no need to learn everything, there are
> >>>> other people with other knowledge !
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> EMF/GEF is definitely anything but trivial and your questions are
> >>>
> >> very
> >>
> >>> important for us since we can decide which way the development
> >>> should
> >>>
> >> take
> >>
> >>> in order to fulfill business requirements.
> >>>
> >>> FL:
> >>>
> >>> I fully agree. Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Florian
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> jwt-dev mailing list
> >>> jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> jwt-dev mailing list
> >>> jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> jwt-dev mailing list
> >> jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jwt-dev mailing list
> > jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Rodrigue, Le Gall
> Portal Technologies' Leader
> BULL R&D , BPM
>
> Bull, Architect of an Open World TM
> Phone: +33(0)4 7629 7464
> email: rodrigue.le-gall@xxxxxxxx
> http://www.bull.com
>
> *Orchestra*, The BPEL open source project: http://orchestra.ow2.org
> *Bonita*, The XPDL open source project: http://bonita.ow2.org
>
> This e-mail contains material that is confidential for the sole use of
> the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others
> or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete
> all copies.
