Hello together,
I have a question about the role of the node "End State".
Following Setup
1) Start-Node, go to 2)
2) Decision : "Be(3)" or "Not to be(7)"
3) Fork to 3.a) and 3.b)
3.a) Do what I want then to 4)
3.b) Do what my father does not want, then to 4)
4) Join 3a + 3b, then on to 5)
5) Fork to 6 and 7
6) Send underling to Request "Get me a horse". Dont wait for success message, but immidiately go to 😎
7) Closingprocedure, then go to 😎
😎 Endstate
So - now the questions:
a) Do I must have a join between 6+7 and 8 ?
b) (side note .. I will read on, though
)How does a super-workflow get signaled, wether it comes from 6 or 7. Is this something in the "END state", or do I need a global parameter ?
Thanks in advance
Norgan
I have a question about the role of the node "End State".
Following Setup
1) Start-Node, go to 2)
2) Decision : "Be(3)" or "Not to be(7)"
3) Fork to 3.a) and 3.b)
3.a) Do what I want then to 4)
3.b) Do what my father does not want, then to 4)
4) Join 3a + 3b, then on to 5)
5) Fork to 6 and 7
6) Send underling to Request "Get me a horse". Dont wait for success message, but immidiately go to 😎
7) Closingprocedure, then go to 😎
😎 Endstate
So - now the questions:
a) Do I must have a join between 6+7 and 8 ?
b) (side note .. I will read on, though
)How does a super-workflow get signaled, wether it comes from 6 or 7. Is this something in the "END state", or do I need a global parameter ?Thanks in advance
Norgan
Hmm …
41 views and nobody told me the obvious (I just found in the developer guide
ops: ) - Joins are waiting for all subtokens to arrive, before it triggers the next transition. So, no, using a join would break the workflow.
Next question - were most of the 41 only nosy, have no clue or do not care ? :?:
Other question : I have to store the "route" in the workflow model and find out myself, I guess. No automatism implemented here
Norgan (gives himself a point 😉 )
41 views and nobody told me the obvious (I just found in the developer guide
ops: ) - Joins are waiting for all subtokens to arrive, before it triggers the next transition. So, no, using a join would break the workflow. Next question - were most of the 41 only nosy, have no clue or do not care ? :?:
Other question : I have to store the "route" in the workflow model and find out myself, I guess. No automatism implemented here
Norgan (gives himself a point 😉 )
I thought it was a good question and was waiting for answers. 
I was resisting replying with answers along the lines of "that's just the way it is".
I was resisting replying with answers along the lines of "that's just the way it is".
So no I'll eat my own fishfood and upate the wiki, MR
… and treat you the point for resisting *g
… and treat you the point for resisting *g
