Why are you creating new tokens?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4199259#4199259
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4199259
___
jboss-user mailing lis
Maurice,
If everything wasn't concrete classes, I'd consider injecting a common proxy
for all of the action-handlers that performs the post-processing. It would
also provide proxy interfaces for JbpmContext, et al, to the actionhandler, so,
for instance, when it did a signal() the proxy would
@ kukeltje and others: Don't you have any hint/suggestion for solving this
problem?
I would appreciate any help!
Many thanks again!
Regards,
Maurice
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4047925#4047925
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index
@kukeltje: Many thanks for your immediate reply!
anonymous wrote : Yes, it is understandable what you want to achieve, process
wise. What I still do not understand is why you try to implement it by run-time
modifying of the processdefinition.
This is because I want to give the user the possibi
Yes, it is understandable what you want to achieve, process wise. What I still
do not understand is why you try to implement it by run-time modifying of the
processdefinition.
Several things:
1: processinstance.suspend is to realy halt the process exectution, not for
using it as a kind of waits
@ kukeltje: Thanks for your reply! Ok, the news are not good.
Ok I'll try to real quick explain my scenario, maybe anyone has an idea how to
solve it:
I have a scenario where a process instance is to be evaluated by business rules
(expressed by drools rules) after each single task instance of t
hmmm yes, correct. Probably because updating just a statenode of a running
instance is never needed (it's behaviour is in the processdefinition).
Updating a processdefinition at runtime also leads to issues since you update
it for ALL running instances of that processdefinition. As a 'solution'
Hi all,
I have roughly the same problem as Javit does. Just a quick question: How can I
save a Transition or a State object?
My first try was to do it the same way like with a process instance:
executionContext.getJbpmContext().save(processInstance)
But:
executionContext.getJbpmContext().save(s
hmm, ya it's the right way but Token.signal() is not enough for my concept.
By all means thanks for your response. If you became a new idea just give me
sign.
thanks again
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4046922#4046922
Reply to the post :
I'm not sure I understand, but it sounds like you want to conditionally call
Token.signal().
-Ed Staub
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4046915#4046915
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=404691
Hi Ed Staub,
first of all many thanks for your response. I know its complex to solve this
problem. But i don't want to do that in the processDefinition, because who
knows when this kind of mistake means (in which activity or task-node- which
actor)occure. You know what i mean. Suppose you
One more time...
Consider
Start transitions to task-node1 unconditionally
task-node1 transitions to wait-node (predefined in definition) if number > 4
task-node1 transitions to task-node2 if number < 4
wait-node transitions to task-node2 unconditionally
[I'm going a little beyond what I feel
thanks agan, So what i want is.
ProcessDefnlition Start-->task-node1-->task-Node2-->End
user gives a number for this variable :this task-node1 node have this variable
with action
Case 1.)if(number>4)
so task-node1 has to wait
AND new processDef will be load hier to signal lette
Why don't you model the wait-state in the process definition, and use
transition decisions to decide whether to skip it or not?
-Ed Staub
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4046646#4046646
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?modul
other solutions depend on what the process has to wait forcan you describe
that?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4046634#4046634
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4046634
_
Hi Roland, thank you for you response. I know its realy scary. But my problem
is to stop the first "task-node" suppose i have in this task-node task
variable with event action(ActionHandler.java). My variable name is number, so
when the user give the number. My rule have to control if the numbe
try saving the state before saving the rest (that is what the error says). If
that succeeds , you'll probably get the next error about a transition... so try
saving the transition before the state.
and btw... dynamically changing a process? scary, can't it be modeled in in
advance?
and btw2...
Hi,
does anybody have maybe any idea to solve this problem?
Thank you for you responses
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4046570#4046570
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4046570
___
Hey,
I re-evaluated the logs and noticed that the second branch is executing like it
should, It just wasn't doing anything because the objects in the context
didn't match. I was then wondering why I was getting the error.
I was using a JbpmContext that was connected to a postgresql database,
what happens when you give the first branche a name to?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4035710#4035710
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4035710
___
Hey,
I've looked into this a little more and noticed that the Fork executes the
first branch and passes right through the Join node to the end without
executing the second branch. Is there something I need to configure to have
the fork and join work together?
Here is a sample snippet of my de
-***.xml---
Going to the first state!
About to finish!
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.
22 matches
Mail list logo
