On 9/18/07, John Mettraux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/18/07, Matt Zukowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ... but even if this is the solution, what about off-the-shelf > > participants? For example, I'm getting errors when trying to cancel a > > process that uses the built-in MailParticipant. What can I do to > > ensure that this participant can handle the CancelItem (other than > > wrapping it inside a custom participant)?
Hi Matt, I have been thinking about this. Currently the engine makes sure that participant that don't have a cancel() method get the CancelItem anyway via their consume() method. What if we simply did not send CancelItem instances to participants that don't have a cancel() method ? It would keep code shorter, no need to add a "return if wi.is_a?(CancelItem)", and it's quite easy to open a class and add a cancel method afterwards. Wdyt ? -- John Mettraux -///- http://jmettraux.openwfe.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenWFEru dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openwferu-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
