Nope, correct behaviour, wrong assumption.
You have a wrong construction. join-fork should be fully nested, not partially. Fork2
starts after fork1, so join2 should occur first.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3968597#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...