Alex, I might be missing something, but I do not think this scenario can be covered through event consumption. The key part is that workflows of type B are manually executed by users, which will provide its own set of parameters. Workflow of type A is just setting a variable context which is shared by all workflows of type B. To simulate such context without introducing the concept into the workflow definition itself, the properties setup by A should be passed as input of B.
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 5:05 PM Alex Porcelli <porce...@apache.org> wrote: > Isn’t this already achievable using events with different topics? > > - > Alex > > > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 11:02 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > This is related with issue > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes/issues/3495 > > We have one user which would like to reuse the result of one workflow > > execution (let's call this workflow of type A) as input of several > > workflows (lets call them workflows of type B) > > > > Workflow A is executed before all B workflows. Then B workflows are > > manually executed by users. The desired input of B workflows should be a > > merge of what the user provides when performing the start request and the > > output of workflow A. In order to achieve this, it is expected that users > > include, in the start request of workflow of type B, the process > instance > > id of workflow A (so rather than taking the output of A and merging it > for > > every call, they just pass the process instance id) > > > > In order for this approach to work, output of workflow A has to be stored > > somewhere in the DB (Currently runtimes DB only stores active process > > information). Since we do not want all process to keep their output > > information in the DB (only workflows of type A), workflows of type A has > > to be identified somehow > > > > But before entering into more implementation details, which I would like > to > > know is if this is a valid case both for BPMN or not. The implementation > > implications are pretty relevant. If a valid use case for both BPMN and > > SWF, we can implement this functionality in the kogito core, there we can > > take advantage of existing persistence addons and add the newly required > > storage there. If not, we need to provide a SWF specific addon for each > > existing persistence add-on with the additional storage. > > Let's share your thoughts. > > Thanks in advance. > > >
