On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:45:10AM +0200, Hartog De Mik wrote: > > @John: My first thoughts on this where: > > * Have an error handler > * And a signaling participant and the end of the chain > > Just as a convention; (Although I do like the Ruote services (didn't > know about them)) > > What would be 'wrong' about that approach?
Hello Hartog, the OP wants to know about terminated workflows. A workflow stopped because of one or more errors isn't gone, the engine will still deliver a process status for it. Having a signalling participant at the end of the flow is the approach I was usually recommending until making services/observers easier to implement. But it has a drawback: it forces flow developers to explicitely introduce the participant at the end of the chain. It's easy to forget unless the flow generation is somehow automated (or there is some tool for flow "verification"). But yes, I should have mentioned this option. Thanks for bringing it to the list of variants. :-) Have a great day, -- John Mettraux - http://lambda.io/jmettraux -- 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
