On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:56 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > we took a look at the code and it seems that in the case of > <in-memory>true</in-memory> parallel execution is not supported at all. > - Was this implemented by design ?
Yes, that's very likely. Although I wouldn't have any problem altering that design decision to offer a choice. > > - Are there any prerequisites for parallel execution that are not fulfilled > in the in-memory case ? It's not tied to parallel execution per se, more the the constraints surrounding in-memory invocation. We have to be careful with the lifecycle of those. > > - Would it be possible to change the implementation to support parallel > execution ? Certainly. Matthieu > > We have a high interest in this functionality and are willing to offer our > support. > > Bye, > Daniel > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > Gesendet: Freitag, 27. März 2009 17:47 > > An: [email protected] > > Betreff: AW: Problem with flow and extension activities > > > > After some more experimenting I found out something interesting: > > > > In the <process> of my deploy.xml <in-memory> was set to "true", which > > apparently caused the sequential execution. > > When setting it to "false" the invokes are executed concurrently !!! > > > > Is this a known issue that concurrency is not possible with <in-memory> > > set to "true" ? > > > > In addition when using <in-memory> set to "true" there must be some > > kind of timeout. I set the runtime of my webservice to 2 minutes. The > > second call to the webservice was executed exactly after 1 minute. So > > it gives you the impression that the second call is concurrent wioth a > > delay, but I assume that the first invoke is aborted (in the engine) > > and the 2nd call is therefore in sequence. > > > > Bye, > > Daniel > > >
