Organizing Service Objects

  • 19 January 2009
  • 3 replies
  • 0 views

Badge +3

I am looking for tips and figure some people here could short cut this for me. We will be building interfaces to a variety of back end systems that will be called from K2 processes via smart objects. Right now I am using the dynamic assembly service in my prototyping. I organize my c# project into folders and classes like the text below. Unfortunately, this ends up with lots of "folders" named Class1 where you can drill down to methods named "static method 1". In short what is missing is the folder name that gives meaning to the otherwise identically named classes. Is there any way around this?

 If I wasn't using the dynamic assembly service, would I have another level of categorization available to me?

 

Service Object Assembly Project

  -- business system 1 (project folder)

     -- class 1 (class file in folder)

        -- static method 1

        -- static method 2

 

  -- business system 2 (project folder)

     -- class 1 (class file in folder)

        -- static method 1

        -- static method 2

 

 Thanks!

 


3 replies

Badge +11

The complete source code is provided for the Dynamic Assembly Service, so you could modify it to implement your own folder naming scheme.


On another point, you're using the Dynamic Assembly Service exactly how it was intended--for rapid prototyping.  If you are going to create a bunch of custom service objects, you will get complete control over all aspects of the service if you write it from scratch (but that of course takes more work).

Badge +3

I'm thinking I'm hearing what I want to hear: you can create a folder like structure with the service objects. I this is true it would possible to organize them like k2 processes can be organized into a tree like structure by putting processes into folders in the VS project file.

Is that correct?

 

If yes, I will try to updated the source to that blackmarket project

Badge +11
I don't know that you have the freedom to add as many folder nodes as you want; I never explored that idea.  What I am saying is given the levels of nodes that are currently exposed, you could change the code to name those nodes to match your style. 

Reply