Hi, 1. Despite I always thought the current implementation of the Import Java Classes had several weak points (that I described in https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/782), suddenly removing it can be a mistake, because the need for this feature has a relevant demand. As a piece of evidence, please take a look at the comments posted by our community users in the article I wrote here https://blog.kie.org/2022/05/dmn-types-from-java-classes.html. If we agree this feature is still useful and deserves a better implementation (to be consumed in Kie Sandbox too), an option to consider is to temporarily enable the current implementation in the new editor, allowing us to design a more reliable implementation in the future.
2. I agree is an important feature, but not a blocker IMHO. Another functionality a community user reported as missing is the search, and I guess this should be considered in this category too. 3. I agree with Tiago, that is the real blocker that prevents us from removing the old DMN. I think we should always consider DMN and Scesim Editor as a joint experience, and that means we need the completed and mature versions of both editors before removing the Classic Versions. A roadmap I would propose is: - KIE Apache 10.x (Scesim editor completed. Both new DMN and Scesim editors are the default. Classic editors are marked as deprecated) - KIE Apache 10.(x+1). Removing the classic editors. Yeser On 2024/12/13 22:22:31 Tiago Bento wrote: > The current situation with SceSim is that users who want to use SceSim can > still rely on the DMN Editor (classic) and never use the new one. They’ll > be constrained to DMN 1.2 but that means they can still use SceSim. Not > ideal, of course, but it is an alternative until we have the new SceSim > Editor ready and compatible with DMN 1.5. > > Toni, depending on a fixed previous version of Apache KIE brings all sorts > of problems regarding security vulnerabilities that can’t really be fixed > without a new version or even constraining ourselves with evolving the > codebase sustainably. It’s a dephased circular dependency. Even though > we’re not actively developing the old DMN Editor, we’re still very careful > with keeping it working due to the reasons listed on the other emails of > this thread… > > Alex, good observations! Looking forward to working with you on a > deprecation/removal plan. And with whomever else wants to join too! 😊 > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 5:13 PM Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> wrote: > > > Toni, thank you for your input but I don't think it's feasible nor > > worth the investment. > > > > Tiago, fair points. Let's work together on a plan for the codebase > > removal, we don't need to rush. > > > > Now my points on the specifics: > > > > >>1. > > >>https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/782 - IMHO this > > is a > > >>must-have feature that needs to be present on the new DMN Editor too. > > > > This is a controversial feature, not on the concept - but on the > > implementation. But for the sake of unblocking the new editor could > > use the same mechanism and a discussion for a more efficient solution > > could be discussed. > > One additional data point related to Import data types: import from > > java is a good thing, but several enterprises will have a centralized > > data type catalog already in place, import things like JSON Schema or > > XML Schema are probably as useful - if not even more useful - than > > Java import. > > > > >>2. > > >>https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/171 - Also an > > >>important aspect that is currently only present on the DMN Editor > > (classic) > > > > I personally don't think this would be a blocker by any means. As > > pointed out in the issue, the old solution was limited and not > > efficient. Whatever solution for PDF/docs should take in account the > > whole project. > > > > >>3. I don’t think we have an issue for this particular problem, but as > > long > > >>as we don’t have a SceSim Editor working for DMN 1.5, IMHO we can’t force > > >>users to depend on the new DMN Editor only and be forced to opt-out of > > >>SceSim entirely. > > > > Isn't this already the current situation? Anyway... I also hope this > > will become a no-issue with the new SceSim in the bake.... > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 1:57 AM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > One option is to remove the codes and stop releasing the older editor > > > Then if we still want to provide the editor we import the older release. > > > > > > This of course depends on where the current uses are and if they support > > > this without causing dependency clashes. The DMN editor matches a DMN > > spec > > > and does not evolve along with the language like Drools editors have > > done, > > > causing the need to release the editor and the core at the same time. > > With > > > DMN in theory this would not be an issue. > > > > > > Toni > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 1:04 AM Tiago Bento <tiagobe...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I’m all for moving away from our GWT infrastructure, but I guess we > > have > > > > three important gaps to fill before we’re able to do that for the DMN > > > > Editor. > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/782 - IMHO this > > is a > > > > must-have feature that needs to be present on the new DMN Editor too. > > > > > > > > 2. > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/171 - Also an > > > > important aspect that is currently only present on the DMN Editor > > (classic) > > > > > > > > 3. I don’t think we have an issue for this particular problem, but as > > long > > > > as we don’t have a SceSim Editor working for DMN 1.5, IMHO we can’t > > force > > > > users to depend on the new DMN Editor only and be forced to opt-out of > > > > SceSim entirely. > > > > > > > > Maybe we can layout a deprecation/removal plan for the next releases, > > > > provided we covered these three gaps I mentioned? > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think! > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Tiago Bento > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 7:30 PM Alex Porcelli <porce...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Following our 10.0.0 release, I propose removing the legacy GWT-based > > > > > DMN Editor from our codebase. We currently maintain two DMN editors > > in > > > > > parallel - our modern implementation and the legacy GWT version. > > > > > > > > > > Removing the legacy editor would simplify our codebase and reduce > > > > > maintenance overhead. The code would remain accessible through git > > > > > history if needed for reference. If accepted, we would complete this > > > > > removal before our next release. > > > > > > > > > > Please share your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org
