Comparison of configuration file processing methods for Shark and JBPM

xiaoxiao2021-03-06  45

1. All sample modes I think I think this is the most basic, and the general programmers write parsers will use it; to explain that AgileFlow has implemented dynamic load of the configuration file in addition to using single case mode, if the user Modify the configuration file, which can be dynamically obtained in the run. When using JBPM, the first sentence will use this mode: jbpmserviceFactory.getInstance () ....

2. All default configurations and custom configuration Shars are implemented, the default configuration is placed in a deep directory, custom configuration placed in the config directory, the contents of the two configuration files are similar; JBPM, default configuration placed in code implemented as follows: propertyClassNames = new HashMap (); propertyClassNames.put ( "default", "org.jbpm.impl.DefaultServiceFactory"); abbreviatedClassNames.put ( "jbpm.service.factory", propertyClassNames); customized configuration on In the config directory, compared to JBPM.Properties, JBPM implementation is good, the reason is as follows: 1) It is easy to find 2) The custom configuration is very simple, the default is not configured, more refresh than Shark

3. All implementation of multiple single cases I have discussed this feature in the article of Shark learning series, JBPM is implemented in JBPMConfiguration.java: Private Void InstantiateConfigureDObjects () {// Instantiate ConfigureD Objects this. fileMgr = (fileMgr) instantiate ( "jbpm.file.mgr", FileMgr.class); this.idGenerator = (IdGenerator) instantiate ( "jbpm.id.generator", IdGenerator.class); this.serviceFactory = (ServiceFactory) instantiate ("jbpm.service.factory", servicefactory.class;}

转载请注明原文地址:https://www.9cbs.com/read-71803.html

New Post(0)