The current situation with SceSim is that users who want to use SceSim can still rely on the DMN Editor (classic) and never use the new one. They’ll be constrained to DMN 1.2 but that means they can still use SceSim. Not ideal, of course, but it is an alternative until we have the new SceSim Editor ready and compatible with DMN 1.5.
Toni, depending on a fixed previous version of Apache KIE brings all sorts of problems regarding security vulnerabilities that can’t really be fixed without a new version or even constraining ourselves with evolving the codebase sustainably. It’s a dephased circular dependency. Even though we’re not actively developing the old DMN Editor, we’re still very careful with keeping it working due to the reasons listed on the other emails of this thread… Alex, good observations! Looking forward to working with you on a deprecation/removal plan. And with whomever else wants to join too! 😊 On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 5:13 PM Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> wrote: > Toni, thank you for your input but I don't think it's feasible nor > worth the investment. > > Tiago, fair points. Let's work together on a plan for the codebase > removal, we don't need to rush. > > Now my points on the specifics: > > >>1. > >>https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/782 - IMHO this > is a > >>must-have feature that needs to be present on the new DMN Editor too. > > This is a controversial feature, not on the concept - but on the > implementation. But for the sake of unblocking the new editor could > use the same mechanism and a discussion for a more efficient solution > could be discussed. > One additional data point related to Import data types: import from > java is a good thing, but several enterprises will have a centralized > data type catalog already in place, import things like JSON Schema or > XML Schema are probably as useful - if not even more useful - than > Java import. > > >>2. > >>https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/171 - Also an > >>important aspect that is currently only present on the DMN Editor > (classic) > > I personally don't think this would be a blocker by any means. As > pointed out in the issue, the old solution was limited and not > efficient. Whatever solution for PDF/docs should take in account the > whole project. > > >>3. I don’t think we have an issue for this particular problem, but as > long > >>as we don’t have a SceSim Editor working for DMN 1.5, IMHO we can’t force > >>users to depend on the new DMN Editor only and be forced to opt-out of > >>SceSim entirely. > > Isn't this already the current situation? Anyway... I also hope this > will become a no-issue with the new SceSim in the bake.... > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 1:57 AM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > One option is to remove the codes and stop releasing the older editor > > Then if we still want to provide the editor we import the older release. > > > > This of course depends on where the current uses are and if they support > > this without causing dependency clashes. The DMN editor matches a DMN > spec > > and does not evolve along with the language like Drools editors have > done, > > causing the need to release the editor and the core at the same time. > With > > DMN in theory this would not be an issue. > > > > Toni > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 1:04 AM Tiago Bento <tiagobe...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > I’m all for moving away from our GWT infrastructure, but I guess we > have > > > three important gaps to fill before we’re able to do that for the DMN > > > Editor. > > > > > > 1. > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/782 - IMHO this > is a > > > must-have feature that needs to be present on the new DMN Editor too. > > > > > > 2. > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/171 - Also an > > > important aspect that is currently only present on the DMN Editor > (classic) > > > > > > 3. I don’t think we have an issue for this particular problem, but as > long > > > as we don’t have a SceSim Editor working for DMN 1.5, IMHO we can’t > force > > > users to depend on the new DMN Editor only and be forced to opt-out of > > > SceSim entirely. > > > > > > Maybe we can layout a deprecation/removal plan for the next releases, > > > provided we covered these three gaps I mentioned? > > > > > > Let me know what you think! > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Tiago Bento > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 7:30 PM Alex Porcelli <porce...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > Following our 10.0.0 release, I propose removing the legacy GWT-based > > > > DMN Editor from our codebase. We currently maintain two DMN editors > in > > > > parallel - our modern implementation and the legacy GWT version. > > > > > > > > Removing the legacy editor would simplify our codebase and reduce > > > > maintenance overhead. The code would remain accessible through git > > > > history if needed for reference. If accepted, we would complete this > > > > removal before our next release. > > > > > > > > Please share your thoughts. > > > > > > > > - > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > >
