Re: [rules-users] [Drools Flow 5.1] Updating a process definition -> Proceed updates running processes
Greg, your guess is correct! The process instance is in fact persisted in db for the period waiting for response in node 2. Guys from dev-team, do you agree that this is a bug and should be filled in Jira? -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-5-1-Updating-a-process-definition-Proceed-updates-running-processes-tp2928103p2993612.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] [Drools Flow 5.1] Updating a process definition -> Proceed updates running processes
I tried exactly that and my already running process continued with the *updated* process version. I have a process with 3 nodes: Action Node (writing to system.out) => Async Work Item (makes request and then waits for async result - not blocking) => Action Node (writing to system.out) So, I experimented like this: 1. started the process, saw first system.out, saw making request 2. updated the process to have a different system.out at last action node, deployed it to Guvnor, waited for KnowledgeAgent to pick it up 3. sent response to the process at Async Work Item -> saw *new* system.out at the last node. Am i doing something wrong? Or have wrong expectations? -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-5-1-Updating-a-process-definition-Proceed-updates-running-processes-tp2928103p2985817.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] [Drools Flow 5.1] persistence + spring + localTransaction
Greg, were you able to achieve process persistence in other configurations? (e.g. without spring?) I don't use drools-spring bean factories to instantiate KnowledgeAgent and KnoweldgeBase (instead i created alternative factories) + the following JPA definition and spring context persistence.xml: http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence/persistence_1_0.xsd http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence/orm http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence/orm_1_0.xsd"; xmlns:orm="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence/orm"; xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; xmlns="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/persistence";> org.hibernate.ejb.HibernatePersistence org.drools.persistence.session.SessionInfo org.drools.persistence.processinstance.ProcessInstanceInfo org.drools.persistence.processinstance.ProcessInstanceEventInfo org.drools.persistence.processinstance.WorkItemInfo org.drools.persistence.processinstance.variabletypes.VariableInstanceInfo org.drools.persistence.processinstance.variabletypes.SerializablePersistedVariable org.drools.persistence.processinstance.variabletypes.JPAPersistedVariable ApplicationContext.xml: This kinda works, but I have to start transaction manually before invoking any method on Drools Flow. And of course if an exception happens during the invocation then everything is rolled back (e.g. process with 3 steps and the last step crashes then process state in database is not updated with 2 first steps). Is it possible to configure Drools Flow to start/commit transaction at before/after process step? -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-5-1-persistence-spring-localTransaction-tp2875263p2985689.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] [Drools Flow 5.1] Updating a process definition -> Proceed updates running processes
Esteban, please explain if a process cannot be updated (and one has to deploy a new process with a different id whenever he/she changes the process definition), then what does the second part of the http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.1.1.34858.FINAL/drools-flow/html/ch04.html#d0e1514 mean? Quoting the doc: "By default, Drools Flow uses the proceed approach, meaning that multiple versions of the same process can be deployed, but existing process instances will simply continue executing based on the process definition that was used when starting the process instance." But if the id is different then, these are different processes and Drools Flow simply doesn't know that they are same processes under different names. So, the "proceed" behavior is met trivially - there is not even possible for 2 different versions of the same process to exist at the same time? Do I understand correctly that for Drools Flow 2 processes are the same when it they have the same id? So, basically, if I use Guvnor and someone uploads a new version of the process and compiles it, then my application automatically picks up the updated version even for currently running processes (stopped at asynchronous step) is that correct? And if I want existing processes to continue then I need to use a different id for update process (and hence re-configure the whole app to start processes based on new id) which kind of a kills all the Guvnor idea. It seems like I am not understanding something. I would be very thankful, if someone could explain to me, what I am getting wrong. Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-5-1-Updating-a-process-definition-Proceed-updates-running-processes-tp2928103p2985647.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] [Drools Flow 5.1] Updating a process definition -> Proceed updates running processes
but definition of "Proceed" seems to contradict that: "Proceed: The running process instance proceeds as normal, following the process (definition) as it was defined when the process instance was started. As a result, the already running instance will proceed as if the process was never updated. New instances can be started using the updated process." I mean, if process definition has a different id then this is a different process definition and every method that used to start some particular process based on its id, now needs to be updated to start processes based on new id -> kinda makes the whole idea pointles, doesn't it? And part about version really confuses me then -> it says that "you can use the version parameter to show when a process is updated" which I interpret that I can use version to tell Drools that these are two different versions of process. Seems like either I am dumb; documentation doesn't explain the real use case of updating processes or this feature is not really thought through. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-5-1-Updating-a-process-definition-Proceed-updates-running-processes-tp2928103p2930258.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] [Drools Flow 5.1] Updating a process definition -> Proceed updates running processes
Hi! According to http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.1.1.34858.FINAL/drools-flow/html/ch04.html#d0e1514 Drools Flow is using "Proceed" strategy by default = already running processes should continue using old process definitions and new processes will be run according to updated process definition. In reality it doesn't seem working this way: I am using persistent session and I have a process with async step. So, whenever a process stops at this step and I update the process definition in Guvnor (and build new package) then process continues with the new definition (I've added simple Action node with system out and change string that is written to system out). I tried to use version parameter in process definition to distinguish between old and new definitions, but it doesn't make any difference. Could someone please comment on that? -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-5-1-Updating-a-process-definition-Proceed-updates-running-processes-tp2928103p2928103.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] [Drools Flow 5.1] persistence + spring + localTransaction
Nobody uses Drools Flow with Spring? According to svn Mark Proctor should be aware why/how this localTransaction flag is used. Mark could you please comment? -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-5-1-persistence-spring-localTransaction-tp2875263p2928070.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] [Drools Flow 5.1] persistence + spring + localTransaction
Hi! I am quite new to Drools and Drools Flow - please let me know if I am asking something obvious here :) I've implemented my custom WorkItemHandlers that are aware of the KnowledgeSession. Now, I am trying to enable persistence to flows using drools-persistence-jpa and drools-spring. Ideally, I wanted drools to start and end transactions, but I wasn't able to achieve that (this is the problem) and I have start/end transactions manually before starting/aborting/signaling a process (i.e. running a process is a single transaction -> if exception happens no state is persisted). Problem: DroolsSpringTransactionManager has a flag localTransaction which is set to true whenever a new transaction is started and transaction is committed only if this flag is set to true. Now, if inside workItemHandler I invoke a method on knowledgeSession, then my call is being delegated to SingleSessionCommandService and it tries to start a transaction, but it sees that there is a transaction already running and sets localTransaction flag to false -> transaction never gets committed. Am I doing something wrong here? Thanks in advance! Anton -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-5-1-persistence-spring-localTransaction-tp2875263p2875263.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
