How to implement persistence of processes in Activiti?

[user100]

Hello,

I have been trying to look around a way to persist bpmn processes in activiti.I am looking for a case where the process should resume executing from its state before activiti was shutdown(The test case is to shut activiti down in the middle of the execution).

If the process has a usertask , we noticed that it resumes from there.But for large bpmn processes which involve a lot of other tasks like the script or service tasks, how to persist the state of such tasks to avoid re-execution of certain processes?

Any immediate help would be greatly appreciated.

Thankyou

[frederikherema1]

This is just the way activiti is desgined. It runs it's process from 1 wait-state to another (or start/end), in one transaction. So when server is shut-down in the middle, rollback to starting-state is done.

Async continuations are the solution to that. Allowing a process to run some activities async (independently of thread who called start/signal/…), in a seperate transaction. So when an task, marked as async whould be executed, the current transaction is comitted, the state is stored in db. Unfortunatly, it's not yet in activiti. Current workaround is to add a wait-state and a timer in front of the actiuvities you want to run async (forcing commit of current state of process)…

[user100]

Thankyou.
It helped us decide something.

So is there any development going on for the feature we were talking about?
Please let me know.

Thanks again

[frederikherema1]

It's been on our list for a long time now. Odds are good that it will be implemented next month, but nothing concrete yet.

[prasad1]

So has this been implemented in activiti version 5.6?

[ronald_van_kuij]

if it is not in the docs, releasenotes, blogs etc, it most likely is not.

[bauerko]

Ok, there are no new persistence features in version 5.6 I think.

Frederik said that chances are good it could be implemented next month (which would be July). So will there be any new persistence features in version 5.7 or 5.8? Are there any defects on this issue that we could track?

[coner]

bump.

[ronald_van_kuij]

Sigh…

[coner]

it is a rather significant feature, and a date of "implemented next month" was given, but obviously has not happened; is there an actual timeline?