Process Design Patterns in XI

Hello,
I heard that XI has got Design patterns such as Aggregation, Serialization etc. in the Process editor. Where do the messages get stored until the aggregation is carried? Does it make use any ODS in Integration server?
We are using TIBCO and it does not seem to have this functionality.
Thanks,
Venu

Hi Venu,
The XI Business Process Engine is implemented on top of SAPs workflow engine, so the state of a process (including whatever messages it contains) is stored in the database underlying the SAP Web Application Server.
Regards,
Thorsten

Similar Messages

Process modelling : Design patterns & Best Practices

Hi
Could some one please suggest/share any technical information or documents tha's related to 'Process modelling - Design Patterns & Best Practices'
Thanks in Advance
Santosh K.
Edited by: Santosh539 on Jul 29, 2010 4:07 PM

Hi Santosh,
There is no specific site with all the information you asked for.
But I think these links would be helpful...
on Work Flow Patterns: http://www.workflowpatterns.com/
on BPM Service Pattern: http://enterprisearchitecture.nih.gov/ArchLib/AT/TA/WorkflowServicePattern.htm
HTH
Sharma

Choosing a design pattern for duplicate processes

I need to create an application that controls and aquires data for two basins in a wastewater treatment pilot plant. Both basins go through the same series of states aerobic, anoxic, settle and decant but at different times (and therefore need to be controlled independently). Can I run two state machines in parallel or would it be best to use a different design pattern altogether (eg Master/Slave)? The application is intended to be run off a FP-2010.

You certainly can run two state machines in parallel - maybe you could put the state machine in a re-entrant subVI and place two copies of that subVI on your top-level diagram, passing in different parameters to specify e.g. interface channels and output filenames. If it's not possible for two independent VI's to communicate directly with your I/O hardware then they could use e.g. queues to communicate with a separate I/O process. Queues could also be used to communicate with a user interface process if that's required. I guess the choice is influenced by how important it is for your solution to be re-usable and scalable.

Producer/Consumer Design Pattern + DAQmx + Event Structure

Dear community users,
at the moment I try to implement the Producer/Consumer Design Pattern into my current project. For this purpose I am trying to make a "minimal-example" in which I use the Producer/Consumer Design Pattern for the data acquisition and analysis (display in GraphXY, calculation etc..) process. In the Producer Loop I perform the data readings via DAQmxRead.VI and in the Consumer Loop, in this example only, I display the data in a GraphXY. At the same time I want to control the data acquisition via an Event Structure, for example Start Measurement/Stop Measurement Buttons. To configure the measurement time, for example if the user only wants to measure 150 sec, I use the Time Out Event of the Event Structure. This is a technique which is often used, when data acquisition and Event Structures are used at the same time (Excuse me if this is wrong!). Due to understand the Producer/Consumer Design Pattern I looked up in the Template\Framework of LabVIEW.
In the attachment you will find my "minimal-example", which -sadly-, not working. What should I do ?
Thank you.
Best regards,
tugrul öztürk
Attachments:
daqEngine_PCP.vi ‏35 KB

Your VI will never stop due to the Ok Button that stops the producer loop is read OUTSIDE of the loop. Add an event case for it.
Move the Start and the Ok Button inside of their respective event cases. This will allow the latch to reset when they are read.
Change the Ok Button to a stop button.
Use a Greater Or Equal instead of Equal for the measurement time comparison. What if somebody randomly changes it to 0 on you? Again, you will never stop.
Is the DAQ only supposed to read for "Measurement Time". Right now, it constantly reads. So if you don't use the DAQmx Read, you will get a buffer overflow error. You need to put the DAQmx Start Task inside of the Start event case and then the Stop DAQmx Task inside of the Timeout event case when the measurement time is exceeded. You should also perform the read regardless inside of the Timeout event case.
I HATE telling the consumer loop to stop by destroying the queue. You can look data that way. Instead, send something an empty array. In the consumer, check for an empty array. If it is empty, stop. Destroy the queue only AFTER BOTH LOOPS HAVE COMPLETED.
You should also report your errors in some way. Simple Error Handler at the minimum.
Since you are using Continous Samples, don't limit the buffer. Leave the Samples per Channel unwired on the DAQmx Timing VI.
There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions
Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines

Choice of design pattern for data acquisition system

Hello all
I have a trouble about selecting the suitable design pattern / architecture for a data acquisition system.
Here is the details of the desired system:
There is data acquisition hardware and I need to use it by observing parameters on User interface.
the data acquisiton period, channel list to scan should be chosen on User interface. Besides, there are many user interface interactions. e.g. if user selects a channel to add scanlist, then I need to enable and make visible some other parts on user interface.
When user completes the channel selection, then he will press the button to start data acquisition. Then I also need to show the scanned values on a graph in real time and log them in txt file.
I know that I cannot use producer consumer pattern here. because the data acquisition loop should wait for parameters to scan channels. and it works in a given period by user. so the user interface loop performs higher rate then consumer loop (data acquisition loop). it means queue will be bigger bigger. if I use notifier it will loss some data come from user interface.
is there any idea about that ? is there any suitable design pattern for this case ?
Thanks in advance
best regards
Veli BAYAR
Embedded Systems Software and Hardware Engineer
"You live in a graphical world. Why not program in one?"
Solved!
Go to Solution.

johnsold wrote:
Veli,
I recommend the Producer/Consumer model with some modifications.
You might need three loops. I cannot tell for sure from your brief description.
The User Interface loop responds to the user inputs for configuration and start/stop of acquisition. The parameters and commands are passed to the Data Acquisition loop via a queue. In this loop is a state machine which has Idle, Configuration, Acquisition, and Shutdown states (and perhaps others). The data is sent to the Processing loop via a different queue. The Processing loop performs any data processing, displays the data to the user, and saves it to file. A notifier can be used to send the Stop or shutdown command from the User Interface loop to the other loops. If the amount of processing is minimal and the file write times are not too long, the Processing loop functions might be able to occur in the Timeout case of the UI loop Event structure. This simplifies things somewhat but is not as flexible when changes need to be made.
I am not sure that a Design Pattern for this exact setup exists but it is basically a combination of the Producer/Consumer (Events) and Producer/Consumer (Data) Design Patterns.
Lynn
Check out this thread: http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Multiple-poll-case-structures-to-event-help/td-p/2551309
There are discussions there about a 3-loop architecture that may help you.
Jeff
Jeffrey Zola

SAP Fiori - Layout Design patterns

Dear All Gurus,
This may be a layman question but expecting your expert advice and perspective on this.
I am creting a fully customized fiori application -" Purchase Order Creation " and User wants to have the UI design very simillar to SAP screens(ME21n) adding only required fields into that.
I know that fiori has a design pattern(Ex : Main items in left and details in right side , 'back' button etc..) which gives me a good impression. But if I go ahead with user's requirement will there be an impact ? Ex : performance / run on mobile.
Thanking you all in advance..
Tags edited by: Michael Appleby

Hi Masayuki,
Thank you for the reply..
+Target device: windows desktop(mainly) and mobile
+Who will use: Employees (mainly)/MRP specialist
+Number of users: 500
+Is there Purchase Requisition process before Purchase Order : NO . Direct PO creation. But PO Approval is there using srtandard Fiori App.
+PO will be created entering everything manually
+Where is the data source for creating PO? : Original data is on paper

Design pattern / data loading solution

Hello all!
I have been working on a few projects which involve loading data, sometimes remotely, sometimes local, sometimes JSON, sometimes XML. The problem I am having is that due to the speed of development and the changing minds of various clients I am finding my designs are too rigid and I would like them to be more flexable. I have been trying to think of a reusable solution to data loading, and would like some advice as I imagine many of you out there have had the same problem.
What I would like to do is to create a generic LoadingOperation abstract class, which has member variables of type Parser and Loader, which have parse() and loadData() methods respectivly. The Parser and Loader classed are interfaces and classes that implement these could be XMLParser and JSONParser, LocalLoader and RemoteLoader etc. With something like this i would like to have a new class which extends LoadingOperation for each thing to be loaded, weather thats a local XML file, or remote JSON, or whatever.
The problem is is that specific Parser implementation cannot return custom data types without breaking the polymorphic behavior of the LoadingOperation class. I have been messing around with generics and declaring subclasses of LoadingOperation like
class SpecificLoader extends LoadingOperation<CustomDataType>
and doing similar things with Parser classes, but this seems a bit weird.
Does anyone have any suggestions on what im doing wrong / could be doing better. I want to be able to react quickly to changing specifications (ignoring the fact that they shouldnt be changing that much!) and have a logical seperation of code etc...
thanks for any help!
psi have also asked this question here [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4329087/design-pattern-data-loading-solution]

rackham wrote:
Hello all!
I have been working on a few projects which involve loading data, sometimes remotely, sometimes local, sometimes JSON, sometimes XML. The problem I am having is that due to the speed of development and the changing minds of various clients I am finding my designs are too rigid and I would like them to be more flexable. I have been trying to think of a reusable solution to data loading, and would like some advice as I imagine many of you out there have had the same problem.
What I would like to do is to create a generic LoadingOperation abstract class, which has member variables of type Parser and Loader, which have parse() and loadData() methods respectivly. The Parser and Loader classed are interfaces and classes that implement these could be XMLParser and JSONParser, LocalLoader and RemoteLoader etc. With something like this i would like to have a new class which extends LoadingOperation for each thing to be loaded, weather thats a local XML file, or remote JSON, or whatever.
The problem is is that specific Parser implementation cannot return custom data types without breaking the polymorphic behavior of the LoadingOperation class. I have been messing around with generics and declaring subclasses of LoadingOperation like
class SpecificLoader extends LoadingOperation<CustomDataType>
and doing similar things with Parser classes, but this seems a bit weird.
Does anyone have any suggestions on what im doing wrong / could be doing better. I want to be able to react quickly to changing specifications (ignoring the fact that they shouldnt be changing that much!) and have a logical seperation of code etc...That depends on the specifics.
The fact that it seems like processes are similar doesn't mean that they are in fact the same. My code editor and Word both seem to be basically the same but I am rather sure that generalizing between the two would be a big mistake.
And I speak from experience (parsing customer data and attempting to generalize the process.)
The problem with attempting to generalize is if you generalize functionality that is not in fact the same. And then you end up with conditional logic all over the place to deal with differences dependent on the users. Rather than saving time that actually costs time because the code becomes more fragile.
Doesn't mean it isn't possible but just rather that you should insure that it is in fact common behavior before implementing anything.

Best architecture and design pattern to use

I am currently designing a moderately sized LabView application and cannot decide on the best architecture/design pattern or combinations thereof to implement.
The program basically polls an instrument connected to a serial port continuously at a 2-10Hz rate. When operator clicks a button to start a run, the polled data is then filtered, has math functions performed on the data, writes collected data to files, and produces reltime graphs and calculates point-by-point statistics. At the completion of a run, some additional data files are written. I pretty much know how to accomplish all these tasks.
What is also required is main-vi front panel interaction by the operator to access a database (via a C# dll with .Net) to query for specifications to apply in order to determine pass/fail status. Setup conditions also need to be changed from time to time by the operator and applied to the data in real time (ie- a measurement offset). I have prototyped the database portion successfully thus far.
For the main vi, I started off using the Top Level Application Using Events design pattern (Event structure within a while loop). Copious use of bundled clusters and shift registers keep the database data updated. I cannot figure out how to have the top level vi concurrently poll the serial device as outlined above. The Event structure is only active when defined control values change, and use of a timeout is no help since it prevent data from being collected while the user is accessing the database. All database and setup parameters must be applied to the data as it comes in from the serial port. Error trapping/recovery is a must.
I believe what I need is two parallel processes running under my main vi (one for database and setup, the other for polling and data processing/display, but what would be the preferred choice here?
Revert back to a polled loop in lieu of Events, use notifiers, occurrences, user-defined events, Producer-consumer loops?
It�s been about 3 years since I have had an application on this level (which used a state machine architecture), and a lot has changed in LabView (using 7.1 Prof Devel). I am currently having a mental block while trying to digest a lot of features I have never used before.
Suggestions Welcome!
Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It’s the questions that drive us.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I suggest a (3) state machine(s) architecture. The first is the user interface. Your main VI is a good start. Another state machine handles the instrument I/O (your serial polling). The third handles all data processing. The three loops run independently. Each has a wait to allow LV's scheduler to share CPU time among the loops. I like queues or functional globals for inter-loop communications.
This allows a lot of flexibility. Each portion can be tested alone. Each can have different timing and priority.
Spend some time thinking about what needs to be done and plan the structure carefully before you do any coding (except for little test programs to try new ideas).
I also like Conway and Watts "A Software Engineering Approach to LabVIEW", published
by Prentice Hall.
Lynn

ABAP Object X Design Patterns X Extreme Program

Hi Evebody,
Im postgraduate in Object Oriented Analysis and Programming.
Ive been working with ABAP procedural development for two years and Ive started to work with ABAP Objects has few months.
Id like to get deeply knowledge in my developments skills, could someone tell me if ABAP Object X Designer Patterns X Extreme Program is a good path to follow?
Id like to share material and guides about this topic.
Ive already bought these books to help me.
ABAP Objects - H. Keller; Hardcover (Pre-Order)
Design Patterns Explained - Alan Shalloway
Ill be very grateful with any help.

> And do you think these themes are a great combination
> for ABAP development?
Design pattern are very abstract and can be used with any OO programming language. The implementations will differ but the core concepts are always the same.
XP is an agile development process and can also be used with any programming language.
Learning what design pattern are and how to use them is very important in my opinion. Most companies expect that you are familiar and have experience with them.
Extreme Programming (XP) on the other side is different. When I began to explore XP it got me started on how software should be developed in general. Since the concepts behind XP are quite different, it should at least stimulate you to start thinking about how you develop software at the moment and if there might be better ways of doing it.
If you have only time to study one subject go for the design pattern. You might also consider reading the following books if you want to improve your OO coding skills:
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Refactoring-Improving-Design-Existing-Code/dp/0201485672/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4989641-7820932?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173448197&sr=8-1">Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code (a true classic)</a>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Refactoring-Patterns-Addison-Wesley-Signature-Kerievsky/dp/0321213351/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-4989641-7820932?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173448197&sr=8-2">Refactoring to Patterns (Shows how to improve code by introducing design pattern)</a>
cheers
Thomas

RE: design patterns involving EJBs and JDO

Is the idea that you specify in some config file (xml?) the methods of
your session bean, whether its stateful or stateless, the default bean
transaction semantics, etc, then say "go" and it generates the home and
remote interfaces and the skeletal session bean class?
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Lindauer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 8:26 AM
To: JDO-ListServ
Subject: Re: design patterns involving EJBs and JDO
I don't think it's publicly available yet, I used to work there and was
helping out a little with testing. I'll tell you in advance, it really
works well. Much like the JDO implementation, the process of turning
things into SesisonBeans is very transparent to the developer. I guess
TT is going to make it available in another week or two, as time
permits.
----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew <mailto:[email protected]> Adams
To: '[email protected]' <mailto:'[email protected]'>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: design patterns involving EJBs and JDO
IMHO, JDO replaces entity beans, but you'll have to decide for yourself.
My recommendation would be to use session beans exclusively.
Where do you get TechTrader's "SessionBean Creator"? What are its
features? How do you use it?
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Lindauer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 8:12 AM
To: JDO-ListServ
Subject: design patterns involving EJBs and JDO
Hi,
I was just wondering, if you are using JDO for persistence, does it
matter whether you wrap your objects with proxy EntityBeans or
SessionBeans? I am currently demoing TechTrader's SessionBean creator,
which makes means that for me creating SessionBeans is much easier than
creating EntityBeans. I am currently using stateful SessionBeans to
wrap the JDO objects, simply dropping them when the bean is passivated
and refinding them ( they'll already be in the cache ) when the bean is
activated.
My main advantage in doing it this way is SessionBeans are so much
easier to create. Do you see any problems looming, or any other
advantages to this decision?
Thanks in advance.
Eric

I don't think it's publicly available yet, I used to work there and was
helping out a little with testing. I'll tell you in advance, it really
works well. Much like the JDO implementation, the process of turning
things into SesisonBeans is very transparent to the developer. I guess
TT is going to make it available in another week or two, as time
permits.
----- Original Message -----_
From: Matthew <mailto:[email protected]> Adams_
To: '[email protected]' <mailto:'[email protected]'>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: design patterns involving EJBs and JDO
IMHO, JDO replaces entity beans, but you'll have to decide for yourself.
My recommendation would be to use session beans exclusively.
Where do you get TechTrader's "SessionBean Creator"? What are its
features? How do you use it?
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Lindauer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 8:12 AM
To: JDO-ListServ
Subject: design patterns involving EJBs and JDO
Hi,
I was just wondering, if you are using JDO for persistence, does it
matter whether you wrap your objects with proxy EntityBeans or
SessionBeans? I am currently demoing TechTrader's SessionBean creator,
which makes means that for me creating SessionBeans is much easier than
creating EntityBeans. I am currently using stateful SessionBeans to
wrap the JDO objects, simply dropping them when the bean is passivated
and refinding them ( they'll already be in the cache ) when the bean is
activated._
My main advantage in doing it this way is SessionBeans are so much
easier to create. Do you see any problems looming, or any other
advantages to this decision?
Thanks in advance.
Eric_

Design Patterns, The Decorator

When trying to implement the classic decorator design patterns your decorator executable might look like this: 
<pre>
METHOD validate.
 DATA: Validator TYPE REF TO validation_manager.
 CREATE OBJECT:
 Validator TYPE validation_manager.
 ,Validator TYPE validate_format EXPORTING x_validator = Validator
 ,Validator TYPE validate_values EXPORTING x_validator = Validator
 ,Validator TYPE validate_relation_input EXPORTING x_validator = Validator
 ,Validator TYPE validate_relation_database EXPORTING x_validator = Validator.
 me->lst_result = validator->validate( me->lst_data ).
 WRITE: / 'Processing Validate Activity'.
ENDMETHOD. "validate</pre> 
The validate method ends up in endless resurcion in the memory. The reason is that I'm using the same variable as the resulting instanse and as parameter. It seems like the constructor treats both the result and the parameter as the same field/instanse regardless import parameter such as VALUE/REFERENCE. If I change the method to use an extra field in the method validate like:
 <pre>
METHOD validate.
 DATA:
 validator TYPE REF TO validation_manager
 ,recursive TYPE REF TO validation_manager.
 CREATE OBJECT validator TYPE validation_manager.
 recursive ?= validator.
 CREATE OBJECT validator TYPE validate_format
 EXPORTING x_validator = recursive.
 recursive ?= validator.
 CREATE OBJECT validator TYPE validate_values
 EXPORTING x_validator = recursive.
 recursive ?= validator.
 CREATE OBJECT validator TYPE validate_relation_input
 EXPORTING x_validator = recursive.
 recursive ?= validator.
 CREATE OBJECT validator TYPE validate_relation_database
 EXPORTING x_validator = recursive .
 recursive ?= validator.
 me->lst_result = validator->validate( me->lst_data ).
 WRITE: / 'Processing Validate Activity'.
ENDMETHOD. "validate</pre> 
Now the decorator engine works, but why does the first implementation not work when the same one executes fine in php, c++, delphi, java and other languages. 
If you do not know what I'm trying to discuss, look up "Design Patterns - Simply", and jump to the chapter about the decorator design pattern. I'm trying to use this design pattern for a validation manager within my Business Process Engine, which needs to be able to configure what types of validation needed for on specific process (BPMN). 

Hi Matt, Thanks for the formatting..:) I will post the complete program as it's only a prototype program. Trying to get the format under control.
</body>
Report ZDP_DECORATOR_XMP01
REPORT zdp_decorator_xmp01.
parameters: bestimpl TYPE boolean_01 default 0.
TYPES:
BEGIN OF processdata
 ,name TYPE char30
 ,street TYPE char30
 ,zip TYPE char5
 ,city TYPE char30
 ,email TYPE char50
 ,phone TYPE char20
,END OF processdata
,BEGIN OF result
 ,msgid TYPE msgid
 ,msgtyp TYPE msgty
 ,msgno TYPE msgno
 ,status TYPE char1
,END OF result.
CONSTANTS:
true TYPE boolean_01 VALUE 1
,false TYPE boolean_01 VALUE 0.
CLASS validationmanager DEFINITION
CLASS validation_manager DEFINITION.
PUBLIC SECTION.
 METHODS:
 validate
 IMPORTING
 x_data TYPE processdata
 RETURNING
 value(y_result) TYPE result.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS validationmanager IMPLEMENTATION
CLASS validation_manager IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD validate.
 WRITE: / 'Common validation'.
ENDMETHOD. "validate
ENDCLASS.
CLASS Validate_Decorator DEFINITION
CLASS validate_decorator DEFINITION INHERITING FROM validation_manager ABSTRACT .
PUBLIC SECTION.
 DATA: validator TYPE REF TO validation_manager.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS validate_format DEFINITION
CLASS validate_format DEFINITION INHERITING FROM validate_decorator.
PUBLIC SECTION.
 METHODS:
 constructor
 IMPORTING value(x_validator) TYPE REF TO validation_manager
 ,validate REDEFINITION.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS validate_format IMPLEMENTATION
CLASS validate_format IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD constructor.
 CALL METHOD super->constructor( ).
 me->validator = x_validator.
ENDMETHOD. "constructor
METHOD validate.
 y_result = validator->validate( x_data ).
 IF y_result-status IS INITIAL.
 WRITE: / 'Now doing the format checks'.
 ENDIF.
ENDMETHOD. "validate
ENDCLASS.
CLASS validate_values DEFINITION
CLASS validate_values DEFINITION INHERITING FROM validate_decorator.
PUBLIC SECTION.
 METHODS:
 constructor
 IMPORTING value(x_validator) TYPE REF TO validation_manager
 ,validate REDEFINITION.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS validate_values IMPLEMENTATION
CLASS validate_values IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD constructor.
 CALL METHOD super->constructor( ).
 me->validator = x_validator.
ENDMETHOD. "constructor
METHOD validate.
 y_result = validator->validate( x_data ).
 IF y_result-status IS INITIAL.
 WRITE: / 'Now doing the values checks'.
 ENDIF.
ENDMETHOD. "validate
ENDCLASS.
CLASS validate_relation_input DEFINITION
CLASS validate_relation_input DEFINITION INHERITING FROM validate_decorator.
PUBLIC SECTION.
 METHODS:
 constructor
 IMPORTING value(x_validator) TYPE REF TO validation_manager
 ,validate REDEFINITION.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS validate_relation_input IMPLEMENTATION
CLASS validate_relation_input IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD constructor.
 CALL METHOD super->constructor( ).
 me->validator = x_validator.
ENDMETHOD. "constructor
METHOD validate.
 y_result = validator->validate( x_data ).
 IF y_result-status IS INITIAL.
 WRITE: / 'Now doing the relation input checks'.
 ENDIF.
ENDMETHOD. "validate
ENDCLASS.
CLASS validate_relation_database DEFINITION
CLASS validate_relation_database DEFINITION INHERITING FROM validate_decorator.
PUBLIC SECTION.
 METHODS:
 constructor
 IMPORTING value(x_validator) TYPE REF TO validation_manager
 ,validate REDEFINITION.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS validate_relation_database IMPLEMENTATION
CLASS validate_relation_database IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD constructor.
 CALL METHOD super->constructor( ).
 me->validator = x_validator.
ENDMETHOD. "constructor
METHOD validate.
 y_result = validator->validate( x_data ).
 IF y_result-status IS INITIAL.
 WRITE: / 'Now doing the relation database checks'.
 ENDIF.
ENDMETHOD. "validate
ENDCLASS.
CLASS process_execution DEFINITION
CLASS process_execution DEFINITION.
PUBLIC SECTION.
 METHODS:
 startevent
 ,getdata
 ,validate
 ,process
 ,endevent.
PRIVATE SECTION.
 DATA:
 lst_data TYPE processdata
 ,lst_result TYPE result.
ENDCLASS. "process_execution DEFINITION
CLASS process_execution IMPLEMENTATION
CLASS process_execution IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD startevent.
 WRITE: / 'Processing startevent'.
ENDMETHOD. "startevent
METHOD getdata.
 me->lst_data-name = 'Hans Andersen'.
 me->lst_data-street = 'H.C Andersens Boulevard 112'.
 me->lst_data-zip = '1557'.
 me->lst_data-city = 'København'.
 me->lst_data-email = 'hcATandersen.dk'.
 me->lst_data-phone = '0045-31162211'.
 WRITE: / 'Processing Get_Data Activity'.
ENDMETHOD. "getdata
METHOD validate.
 DATA:
 validator TYPE REF TO validation_manager
 ,recursive TYPE REF TO validation_manager
 IF bestimpl = true.
 CREATE OBJECT:
 validator TYPE validation_manager
 ,validator TYPE validate_format EXPORTING x_validator = recursive
 ,validator TYPE validate_values EXPORTING x_validator = recursive
 ,validator TYPE validate_relation_input EXPORTING x_validator = recursive
 ,validator TYPE validate_relation_database EXPORTING x_validator = recursive.
 ELSE.
 CREATE OBJECT validator TYPE validation_manager.
 recursive ?= validator.
 CREATE OBJECT validator TYPE validate_format
 EXPORTING x_validator = recursive.
 recursive ?= validator.
 CREATE OBJECT validator TYPE validate_values
 EXPORTING x_validator = recursive.
 recursive ?= validator.
 CREATE OBJECT validator TYPE validate_relation_input
 EXPORTING x_validator = recursive.
 recursive ?= validator.
 CREATE OBJECT validator TYPE validate_relation_database
 EXPORTING x_validator = recursive .
 recursive ?= validator.
 ENDIF.
Recursive call of the validate and it's successors
 me->lst_result = validator->validate( me->lst_data ).
 WRITE: / 'Processing Validate Activity'.
ENDMETHOD. "validate
METHOD process.
 WRITE: / 'Processing Process Activity'.
ENDMETHOD. "process
METHOD endevent.
 WRITE: / 'Processing endevent'.
ENDMETHOD. "endevent
ENDCLASS.
CLASS mainapp DEFINITION *
CLASS mainapp DEFINITION.
PUBLIC SECTION.
 CLASS-METHODS:
 main.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS mainapp IMPLEMENTATION *
CLASS mainapp IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD main.
 DATA:
 p89 TYPE REF TO process_execution.
 CREATE OBJECT p89.
 p89->startevent( ).
 p89->getdata( ).
 p89->validate( ).
 p89->process( ).
 p89->endevent( ).
ENDMETHOD.
ENDCLASS.
START-OF-SELECTION.
mainapp=>main( ).
Edited by: Matt on Dec 22, 2009 2:03 PM Fixed formatting

Design patterns in WLI

What design patterns could provide the best reuse of business processes and messaging infrastructure?

          Hi.
          I recently bought WROX Press book Professional J2EE EAI, which discusses Enterprise
          Integration. Maybe not on a Design Pattern-level (if there is one), but it gave
          me a good overview and helped me make some desig decisions. I´m not sure if its
          technical enough for those used to such decisions, but it proved useful to me.
          http://www.wrox.com/ACON11.asp?WROXEMPTOKEN=87620ZUwNF3Eaw3YLdhXRpuVzK&ISBN=186100544X
          HTH
          Oskar

Design Patterns: 'Program to an interface, not an impl.' and Factory Method

Design Patterns: 'Program to an interface, not an implementation' and Factory Method.
Hi All,
I've 4 questions. And 1M thanks for your precious input.
1. OOAD steps:
Requirement-->Use Cases-->Analysis Classes-->Sequence Diagrams-->CRC-->other UML diagrams if needed--> Domain/Business Classes.
If we follow the rule 'Program to an interface, not an implementation',
would that imply NECESSARILY we should have another set of Interface Classes for our Domain Classes? i.e Interface_ClassX for ClassX_Impl.
2. If the point 1 is a MUST because of the rule 'Program to an interface, not an implementation',
ie we should have an Interface classe for every one Domain classe,
would that NECESSARILY imply we should have as many Factory Methods as they are Domain Classes to abstract the creation process?
Interface_ClassX X= Factory.GetClassX() ( return new ClassX_Impl)
Interface_ClassY Y= Factory.GetClassY() ( return new ClassY_Impl)
Interface_ClassZ Z= Factory.GetClassZ() ( return new ClassZ_Impl)
3. On the point 2, the underlying principle used is Factory Methods.
Now on the surface, what are other possible business and/or technical naming for such Factory Methods? I mean should we call it a kind of Business Facade?
4. Is the point 1 and point 2 considered to be the best practices?

So the question here is whether we can predict having
more than one possible implementations which required
option c. Is this a dilema? I guess it's hard to
predict the future.Right. Hopefully it's fairly obvious while designing things and
deciding what objects are needed.
Now, if the Presentation Tier, says JSP, needs that
ClassNormal object. Would we still keep that line of
code a.
OR would we introduce an intermediate object to free
JSP from the direct creational aspect using new
keyword like the choice b. that you reject.
The point here is to reduce the direct coupling aspect
between the Presentation Tier and Business Tier. So
what would that intermediate object be?In that case, you have to ask yourself if there is a valid
need for reducing the coupling. If you simply make an intermediate
object, what keeps you from making an intermediate object to your
new intermediate object, ad infinitum.
That intermediate object could be a Facade pattern, or simply
an abstraction. We actually did that here, we began a massive
java project, and we abstracted away from Swing J-classes and created
our own "wrappers" that simply extended all the J-classes and we had
all our programmers develop using our wrappers instead of the Swing
classes. That allowed us to add some custom code, some temporary bug fixes, etc. Some of our classes were nothing more than "EPPasswordField extends JPasswordField" with nothing overridden. It does allow us a place to hook in and adjust or fix things if needed though.

Is MVC2 a design pattern or architecture? for yes and no why?

I am using JSF which follows MVC2. Is MVC2 a design pattern or architecture? For yes and no why? what is the difference between design pattern or architecture?

Hi There,
Maybe this will help answer your questions...
Firstly, MVC2 is a proprietary name for the Microsoft .NET framework based around the Model-View-Controller pattern - it is an updated version of their first attempt - MVC.
The Model-View-Controller pattern harks back to the days of SmallTalk, and as far as I am aware is not included in the original Gang Of Four design patterns, although there is no reason why it can't be considered a design pattern.
Software architecture is about how different parts of the system fit (interface) together and how they relate, including static relationships (cardinality relationships, state) and processes (what happens when), it most often consists of many design patterns each used to address the various needs of a complete system.
Hope this helps
Rich

J2ME framework and design patterns

Hi everyone.
I'm thinking of building a few J2ME applications, and was wondering if there are any frameworks for this (i.e. for building midlets)? For web applications you have frameworks like Struts (Jakarta/apache), but I've not found anything for J2ME.
Also, any known and proven J2ME design patterns would be of great help!
Thanks for all your help!
Best regards,
Arnt

Hi
AFAIK there r no frameworks, you dont need them - everything you code should be as simple and straightforward as possible.
Hmmm... proven design patterns, well, as I've found standard Java DP can't be used in J2ME, cause you need to do everything with small amount of memory and processing power. Object programming is cool, but it makes big impact on speed of code and on size of generated classes.
And believie me, sometimes those 2-3 kb make difference (eg. on Nokia 6310i, where you have 30 KB of memory, on 3510i it's about 60KB...)
So, one patter of which I can think about is - make your code simple :)
regards
Leszek

Process Design Patterns in XI

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for