Thank you for answering, Michael
Michael Wohlfart ha scritto:
An execution implementation will be locked:
- When it is ended
- When it is suspended
- During asynchronous continuations
The behaviour you describe seems to be intended.
Yes, it's true, but no way to resume the activity on "inactive-scope" and then signal the main instance?
My problem is that I cannot signal the main process, either if sub-process is "active-root" or "suspended", etc:
INFO ProcessServiceBean - SUB_PROCESS STATE: SubProcessRequisitesEvaluation.340002 active-root
EXCEPTION ###########################################
12:00:32,886 INF | DefaultCommandService exception while executing command org.jbpm.pvm.internal.cmd.SignalCmd@34e1d5
org.jbpm.api.JbpmException: execution[MainProcess.50026] has running subprocess: execution[SubProcessRequisitesEvaluation.340002] in state active-root
So "root execution" cannot be changed whatever state are their relative "sub-executions"!
You talk about a "wait state", but my suspension is acting like a wait state, and i have provided a timer to fire after a timeout, to "resume" process-execution, the problem is to move the whole workflow instance to that state.
For now I cannot achieve this if sub-process is running, and the solution cannot be to force ending because the sub-process will be locked anyway.
I have completely freedom for implemention but my stand points are:
- use sub-processes & choose the definition in runtime;
- enforce the suspension in the root-process;