"Koen" wrote:anonymous wrote : For the client program this should be totally
transparent.
Koen, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the sub process in the following code
is not transparent to the client program at all:ProcessInstance pi =
jbpmContext.newProcessInstanceForUpdate("super");
| pi.signal("with subprocess");
|
| ProcessInstance subPi = pi.getRootToken().getSubProcessInstance();
| assertEquals("wait", subPi.getRootToken().getNode().getName());
|
| newTransaction();
|
| subPi = jbpmContext.loadProcessInstanceForUpdate(subPi.getId());
| subPi.signal();
"Koen" wrote:anonymous wrote : You *have* to communicate the id of the
processinstance or the id of the token you want to signal to jBPM.
There's no disputing that. However I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to
keep signalling the main process and rely on some
custom-or-maybe-not-custom-newfangled-waiting-process-state-node to pass on the
signal to the sub-process(es) until those are done and then allow the token to
move on to the next process node in the main process. Voila! There's your
transparency. But hey, we don't have to argue anymore about this. I still love
jBPM.
On the writing a custom node bit: you make it sound so easy :-) Any chance of
an example somewhere?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3936828#3936828
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3936828
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
