[jboss-user] [JBoss jBPM] - Deploying recursive process definitions
Hello,
When playing around with jpbm I stumbled onto this problem for which I can't find a
decent solution (to be honest I think it cannot be handled with my version of jbpm - which
is 3.1.1).
The problem is as follows:
When deploying a process definition A which has another process definition B as sub
process (using processState node), you need to first deploy a new version of B before
deploying A. Otherwise A will still be linked with an older version of B.
The reason for this behavior is that the link with the subprocess is resolved at
deployment time, so if A is deployed first it will be linked with the existing (older)
version of B in the database. Deploying B afterwards will not resolve this, so A is stuck
in this case with the older version of B.
That's OK for me. Furthermore the resolving behavior can be tweaked by providing a
custom SubProcessResolver.
Suppose that you have a recursive process definition, i.e. the process definition A has
itself as subprocess. If I Deploy A, it will resolve the subProcess, which will make a
link to the older deployed version of A! And this is not what we want, it must refer to
the new deployed version!!
Same problem arises with other recursive process definitions f.e. A containing B,
containing C which contains A again.
When looking at the code I see that there is something which handles the case when a
recursive process definition is deployed for the first time (ProcessState.java).
| // in case this is a self-recursive process invocation...
| if (subProcessDefinition==null) {
| String subProcessName = subProcessElement.attributeValue("name");
| if (subProcessName.equals(processDefinition.getName())) {
| subProcessDefinition = processDefinition;
| }
| }
This will work since no A is deployed yet, but as soon as an A is deployed the
subProcessDefinition will be filled in by the resolver (with a wrong old deployed A).
How to solve this problem? Is there a way to deploy A and stalling the resolution of
subprocesses?
thx,
Olivier.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3971215#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...