Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
Clear All
new posts

    Missing class ServiceTask in 15.0d

    Hi,
    While testing upgrade to SmartGWT 15d I noticed that ServiceTask.java class is missing:
    it is present in 14.1p (for example the latest 2026-02-10) in package com.smartgwt.client.util.workflow,
    but not in the 15.0d (for example the latest 2026-02-06).
    Is it intentional?
    Thanks,
    MichalG

    #2
    ServiceTask got renamed to DSRequestTask (clearer) and while we left in undocumented backcompat for SmartClient, we didn't want a bunch of stale, deprecated JSDoc hanging around, and removing that doc means there is no SmartGWT wrapper for the old name.

    We honestly thought no one would notice! What's your use case for this in SGWT?

    And are you OK with the rename? You could just use the old wrapper code from previous versions - no changes there.

    Comment


      #3
      >> What's your use case for this in SGWT?
      We have our own xml/xsd description of processes (workflows) which is interpreted in SGWT application and run as workflow for user.
      The goal is to allow easy modifications according to the user specification.
      So, we have used ServiceTask.class this way:
      Code:
          private static class ProcessElementFactory {
      
              public static ProcessElement getProcessElement(String type) {
                  ProcessElement processElement;
                  if (type.equalsIgnoreCase("scriptTask")) {
                      processElement = new ScriptTask();
                  } else if (type.equalsIgnoreCase("serviceTask")) {
                      processElement = new ServiceTask();
                  } else if (type.equalsIgnoreCase("userTask")) {
                      processElement = new UserTask();
                  } else if (type.equalsIgnoreCase("xorGateway")) {
                      processElement = new XORGateway();
                  } else {
                      processElement = new ProcessElement();
                  }
                  return processElement;
              }
          }
      >>Are you OK with the rename?
      Sure, no problem.

      Thank you,
      MichalG

      Comment

      Working...
      X