[JBoss jBPM] - Re: async pain
by kukeltje
Alex,
I did some tests and I have varying results. Varying in the sense that the same test run multiple times sometimes pass and sometimes don't.
This is what I used for the jobexecuterconfig
<bean name="jbpm.job.executor" class="org.jbpm.job.executor.JobExecutor">
| <field name="jbpmConfiguration"><ref bean="jbpmConfiguration" /></field>
| <field name="name"><string value="JbpmJobExector" /></field>
| <field name="nbrOfThreads"><int value="2" /></field>
| <field name="idleInterval"><int value="5000" /></field>
| <field name="maxIdleInterval"><int value="3600000" /></field> <!-- 1 hour -->
| <field name="historyMaxSize"><int value="20" /></field>
| <field name="maxLockTime"><int value="600000" /></field> <!-- 10 minutes -->
| <field name="lockMonitorInterval"><int value="60000" /></field> <!-- 1 minute -->
| <field name="lockBufferTime"><int value="5000" /></field> <!-- 5 seconds -->
| </bean>
My process:
| <process-definition xmlns="urn:jbpm.org:jpdl-3.2" name="simpletest" >
| <start-state name="start-state1">
| <description>start of the process</description>
| <event type="node-enter">
| <script name="script_start">
| System.out.println("START");
| executionContext.leaveNode();
| </script>
| </event>
| <transition name="start-to-check" to="fileCheck" />
| </start-state>
|
| <node name="fileCheck">
| <script name="script_filecheck">
| System.out.println("FILE-CHECK");
| executionContext.leaveNode();
| </script>
| <transition name="check-to-fork" to="fork1"></transition>
| </node>
|
| <fork name="fork1">
| <transition name="toNode1" to="node1"></transition>
| <transition name="toNode2" to="node2"></transition>
| </fork>
|
| <node name="node1" async="true">
| <script name="script_node1">
| System.out.println("NODE1");
| executionContext.leaveNode();
| </script>
| <transition name="node1toJoin1" to="join1"></transition>
| </node>
|
| <node name="node2" async="true">
| <script name="script_node2">
| System.out.println("NODE2");
| executionContext.leaveNode();
| </script>
| <transition name="node2toJoin1" to="join1"></transition>
| </node>
|
| <join name="join1">
| <transition name="join1ToNode3" to="node3"></transition>
| </join>
|
| <node name="node3">
| <script name="script_node3">
| System.out.println("NODE3");
| </script>
| <transition name="node3ToEnd" to="end-state-success"></transition>
| </node>
|
| <end-state name="end-state-success">
| <description>process finished normally</description>
| <event type="node-enter">
| <script name="script_endSuccess">
| System.out.println("END-SUCCESS");
| </script>
| </event>
| </end-state>
| </process-definition>
unittest
|
| public class AlexTest extends AbstractDbTestCase {
|
| public void testAlex(){
|
| try {
| ProcessDefinition processDefinition = ProcessDefinition.parseXmlResource("alex.xml");
|
| processDefinition = saveAndReload(processDefinition);
| ProcessInstance processInstance = new ProcessInstance(processDefinition);
| processInstance.signal();
| jbpmContext.save(processInstance);
| processJobs(20000);
| processDefinition = graphSession.loadProcessDefinition(processDefinition.getId());
| processInstance = graphSession.loadProcessInstance(processInstance.getId());
| assertEquals(processDefinition.getNode("node3"), processInstance.getRootToken().getNode());
| } catch (Exception e) {
| e.printStackTrace();
| assertFalse(true);
| }
| }
|
| }
Try copying this test method multiple times in the testcase with different names. Often the first one failes, but the others always succeed then.
changing async=true in async=exclusive makes the test always work.
For me this is the end of the research...
- async is exclusive makes the problem go away (tom suggested this in the other thread, did you try it?)
- since the problem is kind of strange, I'm still of the opinion that jms improves things.
- polling like you want to do it is not a 'good practice', using an ESB is.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4056487#4056487
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4056487
19Â years