topic Creating a new task, out of BPMN constructs in Alfresco Archive

Creating a new task, out of BPMN constructs

asyncwait — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 06:58:10 GMT

Wondering what it takes to write a custom task that is not mentioned in BPMN constructs, for example, we would like our business modellers to write XML like this –<managersTask id="task1" action="one.of.allowed.action.for.managers"/>‍‍‍Please note that this approach is favored just because it

Re: Creating a new task, out of BPMN constructs

jbarrez — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:24:34 GMT

From the top of my head:

- Java representation class
- Xml converter class
- Parser class
- Behaviour class

But most importantly, you'll need to change the default XSD being used. It wont validate against the BPMN 2.0 spec.

I would not advise to do it like that, but use a regular service task.

Re: Creating a new task, out of BPMN constructs

asyncwait — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:39:45 GMT

Yes, looks like the XML I am trying to process fails during the XSD validation. While I feel, the XSD validation shouldn't be there or may be designed in a way that a custom schema validator can be hooked into validation process, I agree with you advise that this approach going completely against the spec. I remember OSWorkflow used to have that flexibility.

Thanks for the quick response.

Re: Creating a new task, out of BPMN constructs

asyncwait — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:07:05 GMT

Although the error it produces when XSD validator detects a wrong element seems little weird. Would be happy to provide a patch that produces more clarity on the error message.

Below is the one I get today –

<code>
cvc-complex-type.2.4.a: Invalid content was found starting with element 'restServiceTask'. One of '{\"http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL\':flowElement, \"http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL\':artifact, \"http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL\':resourceRole, \"http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL\':correlationSubscription, \"http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL\':supports}' is expected.
</code>