.... investigating a little more I discovered that the difference
is that the concurrent_iterator version calls "push_in_isolation" several
times
(the exact number), but it seems that the wi passed, once exited out of the
expression,
has always the same last_expression_id that is correct since concurrence the
expression
is formally the same, but this prevents push_in_isolation from working fine
because it uses
this value to differentiate the "concurrent braches". Perhaps we should
choose a different
isolation parameter other than last_expression_id, or define a special
version of MergeArray
to be used in concurrent-iterator. Hope this helps
Regards,
Tom
On Nov 13, 2007 11:23 AM, Tomaso Tosolini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thank you sincerely for yesterday, i really needed to sleep....
>
>
> today, after some investigations i found an unexpected behaviour, but i'm
> not sure if it is
> really so or i didn't understand
>
> please give a look at these two ruby process definitions:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> concurrent_iterator :on_value => "0,1,2", :to_field => "x", :merge_type =>
> "isolate" do
> _set :field => "y", :value => "zzz ${f:x}"
> end
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> concurrence :merge_type => "isolate" do
> _set :field => "y", :value => "zzz 0"
> _set :field => "y", :value => "zzz 1"
> _set :field => "y", :value => "zzz 2"
> end
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> when i test them it seems that the seconds work fine, merge happens
> correctly
> while the first returns always only one of the branches:
> "0" => { brach attributes }
>
> is this behaviour correct?
>
> Thanks again
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 13, 2007 12:08 AM, John Mettraux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 8:05 AM, Tomaso Tosolini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Sorry, i was wrong.
> > > But it's all the day that i'm fighting with a concurrent-iterator who
> > has
> > > subprocesses as children
> > > and my head has gone away. May be tomorrow she'll come back...
> >
> > Don't worry, I'm glad to help you.
> >
> > Best regards, have a good night sleep afterwards,
> >
> > --
> > John Mettraux -///- http://jmettraux.openwfe.org
> >
> > > >
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"OpenWFEru users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/openwferu-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
