Comments inline
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Alberto R. Galdo arga...@gmail.com wrote:
What I'm pointing out is that at certain circumstances, such as when a
human task is completed in a HT Server that connects to the execution
context in JBPM ( we've tested this with Mina ), the
Both persistence mechanisms are already unified.
the jBPM-persistence module extends the Drools one adding the relevant
entities by the processes.
You can be having problems with the Mina Server, did you try the local
configuration? The Mina Server was designed to run in a different JVM than
the
No, I didn't. I need to be able to deploy the human task server and my
knowledge session in separate JVM's. And Mina is on my way.
The fact that I am able to do things in some other way doesn't make this
very problem dissapear ... :(. In fact, this will never dissapear unless
some communication
I think that you are mixing things up.
Did you take a look at the CommandBasedStatefulKnowledgeSession?
Every command that represent an operation against the knowledge session is
being executed inside a transaction, for both rules and processes. As soon
as a safe point is found (for both processes
I see your point, but IMHO that doesn't mean that in certain circumstances,
when the process is being executed in a thread that it is no the same
thread as the one in which drools is executing leads to a situation in
which the persistence mechanisms are not enough to allow a fault tolerant
JBPM
Drools and jBPM are being executed in the same thread, in your set up mina
is not. Is that what are you pointing out?
Did you really need to have mina in a separate JVM or you can use the Local
Implementation?
Cheers
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Alberto R. Galdo arga...@gmail.comwrote:
I
