Re: [bpel-dev] Beautify XML for extension activities

[Bob Brodt <bbrodt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tobias,

I guess "niceInsertBefore" is not so "nice" ;) I did not pay attention to that piece of code and just assumed it didn't do anything harmful to change the descendant subtree - my bad...

The code is what it is...I inherited this about a year ago and I'm still learning new things every day. That's why I'm a little cautious about making the kinds of broad changes that you suggest, even though it would probably make it a bit cleaner.

_______________________________________
Robert ("Bob") Brodt
Senior Software Engineer, JBoss Riftsaw
JBoss by Red Hat

----- Original Message -----
> Hi Bob,
> 
> I'm talking of the ElementPlacer.niceInsertBefore() - which is used
> for adding new activity elements. This does remove _all_ text nodes in
> child nodes, recursivly (replacing them with whitespace nodes).
> I just tested this and added
> elementPipelet.appendChild(document.createTextNode("Test"));
> to my InvokePipeletSerializer. The text node is stripped by the
> ElementPlacer and is not visible in the XML view when adding a new
> "InvokePipelet" element to the pipeline.
> 
> To the <extensionActivity> element subtree: from my point of view you
> would be able to remove half of the code thats dealing with the
> "special case" of extension activities if you would correct that
> structure. But don't mind, it was just an idea. I thought about it
> because I tried to find out what should happen when you remove the
> whole content of an <extensionActivity> element in the XML view
> (including the <invokePipelet> element).
> 
> By the way, by using
> Element invokePipeletElement = invoke.getElement().getFirstChild();
> you already dropped into such a pitfall I'm talking about, as the
> first child will always be a text node, at least for "beautified" XML.
> If the correct element would be connected, such mistakes would
> vanish...
> 
> I hope I'm able to submit a new version of our extensions this week to
> keep you uptodate with our changes.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tobias
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Bob Brodt
> Gesendet: Di 1.2.11 18:35
> An: BPEL Designer project developer discussions.
> Betreff: Re: [bpel-dev] Beautify XML for extension activities
> 
> 
> 
> I think you probably misunderstood the way extension activities are
> handled in the serializer: only the direct descendant child element of
> <extensionActivity> (your <proc:invokePipelet>) is "stripped" of
> non-Element nodes, the rest of the descendant tree is left untouched.
> So, this means that the <proc:pipelet>, <proc:variables> and
> <proc:PipeletConfiguration> elements and whatever else is attached to
> the <proc:invokePipelet> element stays intact.
> 
> As far as the <extensionActivity> element subtree being attached to
> the InvokePipeletImpl object, you are correct. But this is how the
> editor model was originally designed and there are a LOT of places in
> the code that expect this structure. I think it would be a really bad
> idea to change all of this now! You simply need to make your code
> aware of this fact and deal with accordingly: in other words, if you
> have an InvokePipelet object called "invoke", then:
> 
> Element invokePipeletElement = invoke.getElement().getFirstChild();
> 
> gives you the XML element subtree that corresponds to the
> InvokePipelet object.
> 
> HTH
> 
> _______________________________________
> Robert ("Bob") Brodt
> Senior Software Engineer, JBoss Riftsaw
> JBoss by Red Hat
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > what I'm referencing are the children of the child element of
> > <extensionActivity>. As far as I understand your code you are
> > removing
> > any text nodes, recursivly?
> >
> > To my p.s. - I'm talking about the fact you already mentioned in
> > your
> > reply on 01/14.
> > In XML you have:
> >
> > <sequence>
> > <extensionActivity>
> > <proc:invokePipelet name="...">
> > <proc:pipelet class="..." />
> > ...
> > </proc:invokePipelet>
> > </extensionActivity>
> > </sequence>
> >
> > But the created objects are: SequenceImpl -> InvokePipeletImpl ->
> > PipeletImpl
> > Further more, even if I set the connected element of
> > InvokePipeletImpl
> > to <proc:invokePipelet> in my deserializer, you set it to
> > <extensionActivity> later on. The resulting problem: If I have to
> > add/remove child elements of invokePipelet because of structural
> > changes in the object, I always need to find the correct child of
> > the
> > connected <extensionActivity>.
> > Maybe we should introduce an own object for <extensionActivity> and
> > change the example project accordingly? That way the extension
> > activities would work like the rest of the elements.
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Bob Brodt
> > Gesendet: Mo 31.1.11 22:40
> > An: BPEL Designer project developer discussions.
> > Betreff: Re: [bpel-dev] Beautify XML for extension activities
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Tobias,
> >
> > If you have a look at section 10.9 of the WS-BPEL spec, it says that
> > the child of an <extensionActivity> MUST be a single element, so
> > that
> > means it can't have any Text elements. I think my fix is correct.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand your P.S. - can you explain further? Where
> > is the <extensionActivity> element connected, and to what? The BPEL
> > editor Diagram page correctly shows an InvokePipelet activity.
> >
> > _______________________________________
> > Robert ("Bob") Brodt
> > Senior Software Engineer, JBoss Riftsaw
> > JBoss by Red Hat
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Hi Bob,
> > >
> > > your solution is dangerous, as a child element may contain text
> > > nodes
> > > with more than whitespaces in it and you remove any text nodes,
> > > even
> > > those with real text in it.
> > >
> > > I didn't noticed the equals and hashCode methods up to now, you
> > > are
> > > right, the current implementaion is incorrect for many use cases.
> > > I
> > > removed them now.
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > > Tobias
> > >
> > > p.s. I just noticed: After loading the pipeline the
> > > InvokePipelet-Object has the <extensionActivity> element connected
> > > and
> > > not the <invokePipelet> as expected. Thats confusing, especially
> > > in
> > > DOM updates and should be documented.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bpel-dev mailing list
> > bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bpel-dev mailing list
> bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bpel-dev mailing list
> bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev