| Author |
Message
|
| anuppc |
 Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:45 pm Post subject: Joins in MQWF |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Montreal
|
Start condition in MQWF:
In buildtime in the properties sheet of an activity that receives inputs from multiple activities (Join), i tried to set "At least one incoming connector true". I expected the activity to start and create a workitem since i have chosen this setting when one of the incoming transitions are true.
In my case the activity became ready only after all transitions were validated.
Can anyone explain if i have misunderstood the start condition concept.
Meanwhile can we emulate voting kind of concept in MQWF? If majority of the transitions becom true then the join activity becomes active...
_________________
BlowFish |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqmhr |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 105
|
From "Getting Started in Buildtime"
| Quote: |
A special rule applies for the start conditions of an activity where multiple control connectors join together.
If such an activity has a start condition where at least one incoming connector is true? is defined, this activity is not started when one of the preceding activities is finished and its control connector evaluates to true. However, these multiple control connectors are only evaluated as soon as all of the preceding activities from where these control connector originate are finished. |
Hope this answers your question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| koko |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 206
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| anuppc |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Montreal
|
I saw this from the thread which was posted where jmac wrote:
"However just to make the point again for anyone who has not heard it before:
A control connector is a 3 state object (not a 2 state object) the states are:
True
False
Unevaluated"
1. So if i dont have any transition conditions then is my control connector Unevaluated? so when do we say a control connector is evaluated to "True". when the transition condition is satisfied! right?
So when do we say the control connector is "unevaluated"?
My issue is i have A------> D, B------->D, C------->D.
My transition conditions for all are blank and i have D with start condition set to "At least one incoming connector = true". I was expecting D to start of when A is complete.
The next test what i did was put a common transition condition like USERID="TOTO" for all control connectors. I finished A by setting USERID="TOTO" but i still dont see D activity starting. B and C were still in ready state.
In both cases i had to complete A,B,C to get D activated (ready).
2. Voting concept in workflow? how can we support it in MQWF?
_________________
BlowFish |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
| anuppc wrote: |
| So when do we say the control connector is "unevaluated"? |
A control connector is evaluated when the ACTIVITY that is its source is completed.
| Quote: |
In both cases i had to complete A,B,C to get D activated (ready).
|
This is working EXACTLY as designed.
| Quote: |
| Voting concept in workflow? how can we support it in MQWF? |
It is my opinion that the only way to do this would be with an outside observer I.E some program that watches those 3 activities and when any 2 are complete it would forceFinish the remaining activity
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| anuppc |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Montreal
|
jmac,
thanks for your inputs...
what is the difference between
At least one incoming connector = true and
All incoming connectors = true
_________________
BlowFish |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| anuppc |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Montreal
|
jmac another Q on the voting impl.
What is the best way to implement this observer program... audit trail event based observer or is there a better alternative to build this observer?
How can i use this construct (observer) across various process templates?
_________________
BlowFish |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Here is how I think about this:
Case 1:
I have a process where I fork and do parallel processing (i.e. the transition conditions are blank when I am forking). Then it really does not matter which of the two buttons I push, since control will always flow along both paths to the join activity.
Case 2:
I have a process where I fork and follow either route A or Route B to the join activity (i.e only one path is followed). Then I need to be sure that I have pushed the At least one incomming connector is true button, or my process will end early.
NOTE As I recall the default value for this Start condition is different between Modeler and Buildtime... so BE CAREFUL
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
| anuppc wrote: |
jmac another Q on the voting impl.
What is the best way to implement this observer program... audit trail event based observer or is there a better alternative to build this observer?
How can i use this construct (observer) across various process templates? |
I guess if you want a solution that will work anytime you need this "vote" type connection you could write it most easily via the audit events.
If you only need the solution for this one particular process, and the activities are UPES you could add the code to check the vote to each UPES activity. If they are human, you would have to add a UPES activity after each Human activity to check the results.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fidelio |
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 45
Location: AttainBPM
|
| anuppc wrote: |
jmac,
thanks for your inputs...
what is the difference between
At least one incoming connector = true and
All incoming connectors = true |
"All incoming connectors true" requires that all connecting incoming connectors have been evaluated and are true before the activity will start. If one or more incoming connector is false or skipped than the activity will also be marked as skipped, and dead-path elimination on the branch will occur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
