| Author |
Message
|
| 1st Timer |
 Posted: Fri May 03, 2002 6:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 17
|
How would the following situation be handled in MQWorkflow?
User 1 starts a work item from their worklist
User 2 starts a work item from their worklist
User 1 comes to a decision point and selects 'not within their authority'. Work item now becomes User 2's.
Once User 2 completes their work item, will the work item that User 1 could not do because 'not within their autority' appear on User 2's worklist?
Would User 2 need to 'refresh' in order for that to happen? If so, could MQ be programmed to 'refresh' everyone's worklist before selecting the next work item?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jmac |
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2002 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Worklist refresh is extremely expensive and should be avoided, but if you are using the thin client, you can activate auto refresh in the WebClient.properties file. You really should think twice about doing this though.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 1st Timer |
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2002 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 17
|
Thanks for your response...
We do plan to use a thin client.
Please share your concern (s) on activating auto refresh in the WebClient.
AND
A notification would be sent to the designated person if User 2 doesn't work the item within a period of time? As we control the period of time would the soluton be to add a more days in these cases. Is that how you would handle?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Fri May 03, 2002 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
My concern about refresh is performance issues.
I don't understand the second part of your question
_________________
John McDonald
SYSCOM Inc.
IBM Certified Solutions Expert -
MQSeries Workflow
[ This Message was edited by: jmac on 2002-05-03 11:40 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vedbhat |
| Posted: Sun May 05, 2002 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 19 Mar 2002
Posts: 186
Location: Singapore
|
Hi,
I am not sure whether thsi is what you want to do.
If you are looking for some kind of notification to be send for those activities which are not completed within a specific period then inorder to achieve this you need to define the following,
1) Time period for the activity after which the notification to be send.
2) Person to whome this notification has to be send
3) Whether you need Second notification
4) Person to whome the second notification has to be send.
Here the Time period depends on the business requirements.
I hope this is what you are looking for.
Cheers
Ved
_________________
IBM Certified Solutions Expert - MQSeries Workflow
IBM Certified Specialist - MQSeries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 1st Timer |
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2002 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 17
|
John and Ved,
Thanks to both of you for your reply!
We have and will continue to have thousands of work items every day to service. And in the situation I gave, the work item that becomes user 2's we do not want delays in servicing the request, therefore, I believe we would need to set our notification based on a 'need by date'. Otherwise, there would be a delay in completing the work started by user 1.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2002 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Have you considered a virtual user technique? If you use this, then you would be able to present the work to the user in the order you deem fit. In the case where one of these "Escalated" workitems becomes ready, you could be sure that it was presented to USER 2 for their next workitem.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 1st Timer |
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2002 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 17
|
John,
We have not considered this, but it is something we will look into.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Mon May 06, 2002 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
You were too quick for me.... I posted then went to find this link for you.
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/ts/mqseries/workflow/supphumn.pdf
This whitepaper by J. Davis has a really good description of Staffing in MQWF and use of what I call "Virtual User", John Davis calls it "Team Worklist"
GOOD LUCK
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| satboppana |
| Posted: Tue May 07, 2002 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 Dec 2001
Posts: 64
|
THe virtual user concept is very good w.r.t Performance.
At anytime we will have only one workitem per process
We have implemented that and it is excellent.
We use a thin client which is written in java. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
