Bug 779718 (SOA-2080) - Change <field .../> to <property .../> in jbpm.cfg.xml
Summary: Change <field .../> to <property .../> in jbpm.cfg.xml
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: SOA-2080
Product: JBoss Enterprise SOA Platform 5
Classification: JBoss
Component: JBPM - within SOA
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
high
high
Target Milestone: ---
: 5.0.2
Assignee: Kevin Conner
QA Contact:
URL: http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/SOA...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-05-12 13:35 UTC by Julian Coleman
Modified: 2010-06-16 01:15 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
SOA-P trunk/ESB 4.7
Last Closed: 2010-05-28 12:27:32 UTC
Type: Task

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 779646 0 high CLOSED Change <field .../> to <property .../> in jbpm.cfg.xml 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC
Red Hat Issue Tracker SOA-2080 0 None None None Never

Internal Links: 779646

Description Julian Coleman 2010-05-12 13:35:04 UTC 
Date of First Response: 2010-05-12 11:46:07
project_key: SOA

It has been decided to use <property .../> tags in job executor's configuration in jbpm.cfg.xml instead of <field .../>. Currently, there is <field .../> used in SOA-P. Please fix the configuration file.
Comment 1 Julian Coleman 2010-05-12 13:40:51 UTC 
Link: Added: This issue depends JBESB-3314
Comment 2 Julian Coleman 2010-05-12 13:42:11 UTC 
Link: Added: This issue related SOA-2015
Comment 3 Kevin Conner 2010-05-12 15:46:07 UTC 
Updated in ESB codebase, will be in next merge.
Comment 4 Jiri Pechanec 2010-05-28 12:27:32 UTC 
verified in CR1
Comment 5 Dana Mison 2010-05-31 07:24:53 UTC 
Need some more information for the release notes:

How does this affect developers/administrators ?  Is there anything they might have to change in their deployed applications ?
Comment 6 Kevin Conner 2010-06-08 13:29:05 UTC 
I don't believe this affects developers, it is a change which reflects a preference for using setter methods in the jBPM configuration rather than direct injection of the field values.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.