Hi Pedro,
The easiest way would be to override the corresponding class from jbpm...
I am not using this code. I switched back to the default jpbm implementations
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3975996#3975996
Reply to the post :
http://www.jbo
I've saw the code of Jerwah, but i don't understand one thing. How we can call
join class. Is it defined in the process definition?
Can you give me an example?
Thanks,
Pedro
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3975988#3975988
Reply to the post :
Glad I could help. We too are very new to bpm.
As for the persistence, in our situation we have a very slow process (Months)
which is externally moved forward via a custom webapp, so obviously we need to
persist the token counter. It seemed most logical to us to persist it in the
join at upda
Hi Jerwah,
Good work. I cannot understand what the class is doing cos I am new to this
project, but it is passing my testcase and joining all parents, and this is
great.
One comment, the line:
executionContext.getJbpmContext().save(executionContext.getProcessInstance());
was throwing a null po
I recently battled this very issue. Attached is the code for a custom join
node that seems to work in all scenarios. (I edited out some of our specific
code so as posted may not exactly work but you should get the gist.)
|
| public class join implements ActionHandler
| {
| private
I do not think its possible to decouple them completely. But will get some
ideas on partial de-coupling, by reading the execute method of the Join.
It comes with some options like activating/executing the join on:
1) first token arrival, i.e. discriminator
2) n count token arrival, i.e. nOutOfM
3
Thx for the fast reply.
Well, this coupling of forks and joins puts me off a bit.
I would rather that jbpm would be smart enough to figure out that the join is
"joining" both parent forks, instead of introducing structural constraints that
cannot be automatically validated at design time.
Is th
Hi,
The fork and join work in tandem, the join expects exact number of incoming
transitions as the fork sent out.
In the code above you have fork 1 giving out 2 and fork 2 splitting one into 2
and all three then meeting into the single join.
To get this to work it will need another join to be
