Antoine,
While we would like to support all constructs as defined in the BPMN2
specification, we currently do not support the OR gateway yet. Since it
is a rather advanced construct (especially if you start using it in
combination with (unstructured) cycles), we in general recommend users
to try and avoid this complexity by trying to remodel the business
problem using a combination of (the much simpler) XOR and AND gateways.
Therefore, the construct is not yet on any specific release.
The best way if you want to track progress would be to create a JIRA
issue I would say, that we will then use to report progress when
implementing this feature. It would also allow other users to vote for
this issue to keep track of interest.
The implementation would be an extension of the generic Join node (and
JoinInstance), where the logic to decide when to continue would not only
keep track of the "tokens" that already arrived (as is already done in
the current implementation) but would also check for incoming branches
that don't have a "token" yet whether there aren't any active node
instances that could still reach this incoming branch. In most cases
this can be done by simply traversing the process graph. But we could
add support for complex cases, where the graph reachability analysis is
done during process compilation (to avoid runtime overhead) and to
support more complex cases (where for example the join instance would
need to register as a listener to the process instance to make sure it
is re-evaluated whenever necessary).
Kris
Antoine Toulme wrote:
> The BPMN spec contains the business requirements and the description
> of the functionality of this construct.
> Anurag also explained the functionality in this thread.
>
> The questions we have for the jBPM team are:
> -is this construct on the roadmap ? if yes, for which release ?
> -if yes, is there a way to track its development ?
> -Overall, what would the work consist and how hard is it to implement ?
>
> Please advise.
>
> Antoine
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Mauricio Salatino <
salaboy@gmail.com
> <mailto:
salaboy@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> That's what I mention. it can be easy to implement most of the
> times but there are also some complex business use case that can
> complicate the generic approaches.
> Looking at a concrete use case will help a lot to understand what
> do you want to achieve.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:53 PM, mardo <
mardo@abicola.de
> *Subject:* Re: [jbpm-dev] Re- IOR gateway
>
>
>
> Hi Anurag,
>
> Based on your description I think that I'm understanding what
> do you want to do now.
>
> Right now the behaviors implemented in jBPM5 are XOR and AND.
>
> I think what you want to implement is N of M converging
> gateway, as it was in Drools Flow? Am I right?
>
> You want to wait 2 of the 3 branches that you have to
> propagate the execution?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Anurag Aggarwal
> <
anurag@intalio.com <mailto:
anurag@intalio.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Mauricio,
>
>
>
> If an an AND converging gateway has n incoming branches, it
> expects that all incoming have been triggered and when it is
> so - it calls triggerCompleted (so that the rest of the
> process can continue)
>
>
>
> In case of OR converging, lets assume a process
>
>
>
> branch1
>
> / \
>
> OR (diverging) - branch 2 - OR (converging)
>
> \ /
>
> branch 3
>
>
>
> now any of branches may be triggered, OR converging has to
> wait for all branches that were actually triggered (say
> branch1 and branch 3). But the problem is it does not know
> which branches were triggered (for AND it was easier - just
> wait for all branches to be triggered). here in case of OR -
> we don't know to continue to wait for branch 2 or not
>
>
>
> Regards, Anurag
>
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2011, at 1:18 AM, Mauricio Salatino wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Antoine,
>
> So do you want to implement and OR or and AND converging
> gateway, by the description it looks like and AND converging
> gateway. Is there any differences with the AND converging
> gateway that is currently implemented in jBPM5?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Antoine Toulme
> <
salaboy@gmail.com <mailto:
salaboy@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi guys.. that's the AND Converging gateway right?
>
> The AND waits for all the branches that are converging before
> propagate.
>
> If that's not what you are looking for it should be very easy
> to implement.. and probably you can model that with the
> complex converge gateway.
>
>
>
> Cheers.
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Antoine Toulme
> <
atoulme@intalio.com <mailto:
atoulme@intalio.com>> wrote:
>
> Broadcasting to list in case other committers have an
> insight ?
>
>
>
> Antoine
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Anurag Aggarwal
> <
anurag@intalio.com <mailto:
anurag@intalio.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Kris,
>
> How are you
>
> Recently one of our requirements came up for converging
> IOR gateway, this is the gateway which according to bpmn
> specification syncs up on all upstream tokens and
> propagates token when no upstream token is left
>
> Currently jbpm does not support this construct, I was
> wondering if jbom has this in roadmap and if you can give
> some advice on difficulty and state of implementation
>
> Regards,
> Anurag
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbpm-dev mailing list
> - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com <http://www.plugtree.com/>
> - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar <http://www.jbug.com.ar/>
>
> - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com <http://www.plugtree.com/>
> - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar <http://www.jbug.com.ar/>
> jbpm-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbpm-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> jbpm-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbpm-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------