Nope, correct behaviour, wrong assumption. You have a wrong construction. join-fork should be fully nested, not partially. Fork2 starts after fork1, so join2 should occur first.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968597#3968597 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3968597 _______________________________________________ jboss-user mailing list jboss-user@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
