1 2 Previous Next 25 Replies Latest reply on Aug 30, 2010 10:29 PM by rebody Go to original post
      • 15. Re: History details
        rebody

        Hi Maciej,

         

        This patch is pretty good,  Thank you for your great job.


        Please commit this patch, then we could think about which feature should be added further, and how to finish the document work.

         

        Thanks again.

        • 16. Re: History details
          charles_a

          Hi Maciej,

           

          In 4.4, I receive a Nullpointer exception  when using the  historyService.createHistoryDetailQuery().processInstanceId(executionId).count();

           

          It´s  based on the count() method of AbstractQuery trying to cast null to a  Long, null comes from query.uniqueResult() in execute method of the same  class.

           

          Will that be fixed with this patch?

           

          Cheers,

          Charles

          • 17. Re: History details
            swiderski.maciej

            Charles, I am aware of this problem (it is cause by not completed implementation) and it will not be fixed with this particular patch but with another one that I worked on - it focuses mainly on modification to queries ( JBPM-2873 ). Once both patches are applied it will work properly.

             

            I am planning to do the commits in few days.

            • 18. Re: History details
              charles_a

              Thank you very much for you efforts!

               

              Cheers,

              Charles

              • 19. Re: History details
                rebody

                Hi Maciej,

                 

                There is no history record for ForkActivity, ForeachActivity and JoinActivity.  We should also save them in jPDL.

                 

                Regards.

                • 20. Re: History details
                  swiderski.maciej

                  Hi HuiSheng,

                   

                  thanks for pointing it out. What would you like to save when executing such activities?

                  Another question about join, when shall we save it? When any patch reaches it or when join is completed?

                  • 21. Re: History details
                    rebody

                    Hi Maciej,

                     

                    In my opinion, it would be better to save all of informations about fork and join,  whatever which branches are chosen to contien or which branches reached it or complete join to continue.

                     

                    Because we want to use history records to display the route of the proces instance as video or annimation or something just like these.  Now we have to guest when the fork or join reached.  It is really hard to guest these information without history records.

                     

                    I think it is maybe a little hard to achieve these features on current PVM.  Just after we support dynamic fork with foreach and M of N fork, and join with multiplicity attribute. What are you thinking about it?

                     

                    Regards.

                    • 22. Re: History details
                      swiderski.maciej

                      I completely agree that we shall record these activities. Only question is how/what shall be saved. The issue is that we have multiple transition names to be saved for both fork and for each and multiple transition names reaching join.

                      So there are few options:

                      1. we save one record for the activity saying when it happened and number of transitions taken
                      2. we save one record for the activity saying when it happened and names of the transitions as comma separated values
                      3. we save one record per transition taken for fork and for each, for join we save one record for each incoming transition
                      4. introduce new table for transition names that will be joined with history for activities

                       

                      Comments, ideas?

                      • 23. Re: History details
                        rebody

                        Hi Maciej,

                         

                        At first glance of it.  I think the comma separation is enough for fork and forkeach,  because these outgoing transitions will be created at the same time.

                         

                        But for the JoinActivity, if we want to record full information about when each of transition arriaved on it.  We have to record each record per transition.

                         

                        What do you think about it?

                        • 24. Re: History details
                          swiderski.maciej

                          I would rather like to keep it in consistent way, in other words either do it with one record with comma separated transition/activity names or many records. But having many records will be kind of wrong in design manner, since that part refers to history activity, if we put more than record it will look like we have many forks/joins.

                          I am not sure what is the best way to do it, need to think about it a bit more...

                           

                          BTW, history stuff is now committed to trunk, tomorrow will check in query stuff to be done with it and start work on other issues.

                          • 25. Re: History details
                            rebody

                            Hi Maciej,

                             

                            Thank you for your job.

                             

                            And I am agree with you that we should cost times to make a good design.  Next time,  we could open a separated post to discuss this feature.

                             

                            Regards.

                            1 2 Previous Next