On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Alex Boisvert <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm curious... where in the code do you see that parallel execution is not > supported for in-memory processes? It's in the trunk, not 1.x. Matthieu > > alex > > > 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 ? > > - Are there any prerequisites for parallel execution that are not > fulfilled > > in the in-memory case ? > > - Would it be possible to change the implementation to support parallel > > execution ? > > > > 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 > > > > > >
