Removing the isActive() check makes sense to me.
Regards
Jeff
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Milinda Pathirage <
milinda.pathir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had a offline chat with Tammo and found out that this happens due to
> isActive check in line 299 of BpelProcess.java.
>
> boolean invokeProcess(final MyRoleMessageExchangeImpl mex, boolean
> enqueue) {
> return invokeProcess(mex, new InvokeHandler() {
> public boolean invoke(PartnerLinkMyRoleImpl target,
> PartnerLinkMyRoleImpl.RoutingInfo routing, boolean createInstance) {
> if (routing.messageRoute == null && createInstance &&
> isActive()) {
> // No route but we can create a new instance
> target.invokeNewInstance(mex, routing);
> return true;
> } else if (routing.messageRoute != null) {
> // Found a route, hitting it
>
>
>
> _engine.acquireInstanceLock(routing.messageRoute.getTargetInstance().getInstanceId());
> target.invokeInstance(mex, routing);
> return true;
> }
> return false;
> }
> }, enqueue);
> }
>
> Due to this check process state checking in invokeNewInstance will never
> get
> executed.
>
> if (_process._pconf.getState() == ProcessState.RETIRED) {
> throw new InvalidProcessException("Process is retired.",
> InvalidProcessException.RETIRED_CAUSE_CODE);
> }
>
> Is it ok to remove this isActive check or will there be any issues if I
> remove this?
>
> Thanks
> Milinda
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Milinda Pathirage <
> milinda.pathir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Devs,
> >
> > Current way of handling instance creation requests to retired processes
> > doesn't throw any error to client and client will get a timeout when mex
> > timeout happens. And the request will be queued in the job processor. Is
> > this the correct behavior. Don't we need to send a error back to the
> client
> > saying the process is retired.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Milinda
> >
> >
>
--
Cheers,
Jeff Yu
----------------
blog: http://jeff.familyyu.net
