On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Jason<[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with regards to pausing individual process instances. It > should be sufficient to just be able to pause the entire engine.
Hello, OK, I added a TODO note for it. > Here is a much simpler Ruote 2.0 example that demonstrates the > concurrent_iterator problem I'm having: > > ::Ruote.process_definition :name => "concurrent_iterator" do > sequence do > concurrent_iterator :on_value => (1..10).to_a, :to_field => "f" do > sequence do > participant_1 > participant_2 > end > end > participant_3 > end > end > > This definition will exit the iterator loop (and reach participant_3) > as soon as only one of the concurrent sequences contained within > replies. It seems the only difference between this example and those > in the tests is I've nested a sequence inside of the loop instead of > just a bare participant. I have added a test replicating yours : http://github.com/jmettraux/ruote/commit/2f120a4b5efb7d802b1d6dd55bbb71c6a7e3c67a (had to fix two things in fs_participant to make it work as I wanted to) > An array of timeout history is not a bad idea but could lead to memory > problems as tasks continue to loop. For the moment, I'm ok with > unsetting the field or using the syntax you mentioned below. OK, will think about it, thanks for the input. Cheers, -- John Mettraux - http://jmettraux.wordpress.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ you received this message because you are subscribed to the "ruote users" group. to post : send email to [email protected] to unsubscribe : send email to [email protected] more options : http://groups.google.com/group/openwferu-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
