topic Re: Doing by design in Alfresco Archive

Doing by design

martin_grofcik — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:56:21 GMT

I welcome any input, feedback, comment…https://gromar01.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/design-by-doing-with-activiti6/

Re: Doing by design

martin_grofcik — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:59:25 GMT

In fact it is Design by doing (opposite direction).

Re: Doing by design

jbarrez — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:09:27 GMT

It's an idea that I also wanted to do once I find time 😉
The hard part is finding a good relationship/reference model for the various deploymens that get created along the way that fits within the Activiti architecture/API's.

Re: Doing by design

martin_grofcik — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 06:59:43 GMT

Hi Joram,

The hard part is finding a good relationship/reference model for the various deploymens that get created along the way that fits within the Activiti architecture/API's.

Could you describe it more? (example….)

regards
Martin

Re: Doing by design

jbarrez — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:27:26 GMT

Sure: there are a few options here as how to handle the 'previous' process definition (more specifically what the upgradeProcessInstanceDefinitionVersion() method does):

- Overwite the existing process definition and set the process instance to this one. In this case the change must be possible, as in there must exist a matching element in both process definition
- Explicitely map. Do a mapping from activities to the new activities (A->A, B->C, etc)

Which is clear, I think. But there are now two deployments, in both cases, and this needs to be reflected in the audit history too.
So my comment was more referring to that: how would the 'dynamicity' be captured, both in runtime and history.

But both options are born from the fact that deployments and process definitions are static in Activiti (and rightly so, for performance reasons). I wonder if there are different mechanisms possible … where that is not needed, and where the process definition is really fluid … but that would mean a different implementation of some of the core parts … or maybe not.

Stuff to think about!

Re: Doing by design

martin_grofcik — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:27:49 GMT

Hi Joram,

But there are now two deployments, in both cases, and this needs to be reflected in the audit history too.

The command to set process definition in the process instance updates history too. (I read something like that in the code - but I did not check it.

Yes, let's think about.

Regards
Martin

Re: Doing by design

jbarrez — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 08:29:14 GMT

Yes, it does I believe. But I'd also like to capture the fact it's being done by a 'dynamic operation', so that one can reconstruct what happened exactly from the history (which is not the case if we simply use what's there now).