Another question about how to add custom columns to the AEM Inbox | Adobe Higher Education
Skip to main content
JonMaguire
Level 3
July 28, 2021
해결됨

Another question about how to add custom columns to the AEM Inbox

  • July 28, 2021
  • 1 답변
  • 915 조회

I want to add two new columns to the AEM Inbox: Content Path and Initiator. I've read through a lot of inbox questions here on Experience League, but I am still confused on how to do this.
This question basically reflects what I want to accomplish. It is marked as solved, but the solution is another post by the OP that links to an AEM Forms solution. Is the AEM Forms doc really the correct solution for what I'm trying to accomplish in regular AEM? If so, am I supposed to create two services for both Content Path and Initiator? Both of these values are part of the Workflow Info tab so I assumed these values are already exposed somehow?

이 주제는 답변이 닫혔습니다.
최고의 답변: Vijayalakshmi_S

Hi @jonmaguire,

Inbox items are populated based on the OOTB implementation from com.adobe.granite.workflow.* family.

In particular, it is the implementation of com.adobe.granite.workflow.WorkflowSession interface (OOTB implementation class is available in com.adobe.granite.workflow.core bundle)

Similar query and comments addressed in another thread for reference - 

https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/adobe-experience-manager/extending-aem-touch-ui-inbox/qaq-p/394388

1 답변

Vijayalakshmi_S
Level 10
July 28, 2021

Hi @jonmaguire,

Inbox items are populated based on the OOTB implementation from com.adobe.granite.workflow.* family.

In particular, it is the implementation of com.adobe.granite.workflow.WorkflowSession interface (OOTB implementation class is available in com.adobe.granite.workflow.core bundle)

Similar query and comments addressed in another thread for reference - 

https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/adobe-experience-manager/extending-aem-touch-ui-inbox/qaq-p/394388

JonMaguire
JonMaguire작성자
Level 3
July 28, 2021
Thanks for your reply, @vijayalakshmi_s. Reading your answer on the other thread, are you saying extending this wouldn't be advised because it would be like rewriting the whole implementation?