<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Transaction boundaries on errors. in Alfresco Archive</title>
    <link>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/transaction-boundaries-on-errors/m-p/69145#M44432</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I do see this in the FAQ: &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.activiti.org/faq.html#WhatIsTheDifferenceBetweenProcessConcurrencyAndJavaConcurrency" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer"&gt;http://www.activiti.org/faq.html#WhatIsTheDifferenceBetweenProcessConcurrencyAndJavaConcurrency&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;"The behavior of Activiti Engine to calculate possibly multiple steps in a process until a wait state is reached is the default behavior. Asynchronous continuations will be introduced to allow for a more fine grained demarcation of transactions for those situations where it is needed."&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Does this mean that we can rely on having a single transaction for a sequence of constructs that don't contain a wait construct?&amp;nbsp; If so, is this the long-term behavior, or is it subject to change as the engine evolves?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Thanks,&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;BD&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 20:39:09 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>bwd</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-05-17T20:39:09Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Transaction boundaries on errors.</title>
      <link>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/transaction-boundaries-on-errors/m-p/69144#M44431</link>
      <description>Hi,I have a workflow that has a user task followed by a java service task.&amp;nbsp; I ran a test where the task was completed, after which the java service task ran, which threw an exception (due to a data error on my part).&amp;nbsp; My expectation was that the task itself would be complete (because it had to be co</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 20:24:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/transaction-boundaries-on-errors/m-p/69144#M44431</guid>
      <dc:creator>bwd</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-05-17T20:24:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Transaction boundaries on errors.</title>
      <link>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/transaction-boundaries-on-errors/m-p/69145#M44432</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I do see this in the FAQ: &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.activiti.org/faq.html#WhatIsTheDifferenceBetweenProcessConcurrencyAndJavaConcurrency" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer"&gt;http://www.activiti.org/faq.html#WhatIsTheDifferenceBetweenProcessConcurrencyAndJavaConcurrency&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;"The behavior of Activiti Engine to calculate possibly multiple steps in a process until a wait state is reached is the default behavior. Asynchronous continuations will be introduced to allow for a more fine grained demarcation of transactions for those situations where it is needed."&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Does this mean that we can rely on having a single transaction for a sequence of constructs that don't contain a wait construct?&amp;nbsp; If so, is this the long-term behavior, or is it subject to change as the engine evolves?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Thanks,&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;BD&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 20:39:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/transaction-boundaries-on-errors/m-p/69145#M44432</guid>
      <dc:creator>bwd</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-05-17T20:39:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Transaction boundaries on errors.</title>
      <link>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/transaction-boundaries-on-errors/m-p/69146#M44433</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE class="jive-quote"&gt;Does this mean that we can rely on having a single transaction for a sequence of constructs that don't contain a wait construct?&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Yes&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE class="jive-quote"&gt;If so, is this the long-term behavior, or is it subject to change as the engine evolves?&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Both, since it is a non-bpmn construct, it might be subject to (small) changes/improvements I think, but stable enough to rely on it for llong term&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 21:30:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://connect.hyland.com/t5/alfresco-archive/transaction-boundaries-on-errors/m-p/69146#M44433</guid>
      <dc:creator>ronald_van_kuij</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-05-17T21:30:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

