Hello Torsten, On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Torsten Schoenebaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 25, 2:38 am, "John Mettraux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Torsten Schoenebaum wrote: > >> Indeed, makes sense. Would you consider "donating"/"contributing" this >> code to OpenWFEru / Ruote ? > > That would be an honour to me. I will try to finish the participant in > the next few weeks (sorry if it's taking some time, I've got loads of > other things to do).
Great ! >> adding a few tests could be feasible with some ARes mocking. > > I'll see into that but in writing tests I'm still a newbie -- yes, I > should really work on that point... I can help you with that. Many people are doing BDD these days (http://rspec.info/ mainly) but I'm sticking with TDD and Test::Unit (my bad). >> I did some exploratory work on "REST" methods inside of process definitions : >> >> http://jmettraux.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/restful-bpm/#more-445http://github.com/jmettraux/ruote/tree/master/lib%2Fopenwfe%2Fexpress... > > Oops -- with these expressions I could have done my job without > writing a new participant as I only need to do a simple PUT. > >> but I'm not really convinced by my own approach. Somehow, wrapping >> things inside of participants like you're doing feels better. > > Yeah, I got my inspiration from the MailerParticipant. Let's keep the focus on your participant then. > If I'm not mistaken, I could set a field or variable in the workitem > to an array or hash this way. This could be a workaround, but not a > very nice one. I tried that one: > > <process-definition name="ActiveResourceTest" revision="0.1"> > <participant ref="reminder" site="http://localhost:7000"; > resource_name="story" method="put" action="send_reminder" > resource_id="${field:story_id}" > > <a> > <array> > <string>First string</string> > <string>Second string</string> > </array> > </a> > </participant> > </process-definition> > > This creates a child expression which I can get using > get_flow_expression(workitem).children -- but how to go further? I > assume the ValueMixin does the trick in the set expression, but how > could I use or adopt it? You could provide your own implementation of the ParticipantExpression to the engine. As implemented for now, it's rather static (http://github.com/jmettraux/ruote/tree/r0.9.19/lib%2Fopenwfe%2Fexpressions%2Fexpressionmap.rb#L92) the ParticipantExpression class is mapped to the 'participant' names (I guess it's time for me to make a more flexible expression map). Meanwhile you could Provide a TorstenParticipantExpression that extends ParticipantExpression and mixes in ValueMixin. You'd have to make sure to swap the apply() method in the participant to a reply(). The ValueMixin provides an apply() method that then calls the reply() method. It's complicated, that's true. Note that if you use a Ruby process definition you can more easily have array/hashes as expression attribute values, that could save you time. participant :ref => 'reminder', :site => 'http://localhost:7000', :res_name => 'story', :method => 'put', :val => [ 'First string', 'Second string' ] I know it may be a pain in the ass, but I've always been trying to somehow keep data out of processes themselves. Best regards, -- John Mettraux - http://jmettraux.wordpress.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenWFEru users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openwferu-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
