I've got a process definition that forks in one branch of a prior fork and then the 3 execution paths eventually join back up through 2 consecutive joins: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | <process-definition xmlns="" name="syncproblem"> | | <start-state name="start-state1"> | <transition to="task-node1"></transition> | </start-state> | | <task-node name="task-node1"> | <transition to="fork1"></transition> | </task-node> | | <fork name="fork1"> | <transition to="task-node3"></transition> | <transition to="task-node2" name="to task-node2"></transition> | </fork> | | <task-node name="task-node2" async="true"> | <transition to="join2"></transition> | </task-node> | | <task-node name="task-node3"> | <transition to="fork2"></transition> | </task-node> | | <fork name="fork2" async="true"> | <transition to="task-node4"></transition> | <transition to="task-node5" name="to task-node5"></transition> | </fork> | | <task-node name="task-node4" async="true"> | <transition to="join1"></transition> | </task-node> | | <task-node name="task-node5" async="true"> | <transition to="task-node6"></transition> | </task-node> | | <task-node name="task-node6" async="true"> | <transition to="join1"></transition> | </task-node> | | <join name="join1"> | <transition to="join2"></transition> | </join> | | <join name="join2"> | <transition to="task-node7"></transition> | </join> | | <task-node name="task-node7"> | <transition to="end-state1"></transition> | </task-node> | | <end-state name="end-state1"></end-state> | | </process-definition> |
This all works fine, except that I actually want to make sure that task-node4 does not (cannot) end before task-node6 completes, and similarly, I want task-node2 to delay completion until task-node4 has completed. The process defintion as shown works ok, and I do get up to 3 tasks in the task list of the jbpm-console, but I can then end any of them in any order, whereas I actually need them to sequence as described above. Apart from an expression/script condition on the leaving transactions, is there a more elegant way to graph this? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4129728#4129728 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4129728 _______________________________________________ jboss-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
