On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 07:59:18AM -0800, Idan Moyal wrote: > > I eventually decided to start the 2nd workflow once the "parent" workflow > finishes its execution. > As I understand it would be best if I do this using a ProcessObserver.
Hello, not necessarily. The "parent" workflow could simply start (fire and forget) the second workflow on its own before terminating. > Is there a way to specify a ProcessObserver instance instead of class since > i'd like to be able to interact with that instance for verifying my > workflows are successfully executed? > Perhaps there's some other best practice for achieving this? Yes, you can pass an instance (anything that responds to #on_msg and/or #on_pre_msg or a class that declare instances that sport those methods). If you have a multi-worker setup, the different observer won't see the same messages (for example, a flow will terminate in a single worker). But it's OK for your "observe and react" scenario (it's not OK for "hey, I want all observers to see the whole movie" scenarii). (sorry, mostly a reminder for making the email thread more complete for future readers). Best regards, -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ruote" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
