Fork behaviour question

[Zmudzin,Tomasz,VEVEY,GL-DS/DM]

Michael,
 
I'm making this up right now -- but I guess that's design. I would rather
assume that errors are real errors if they get reported to workflow, so they
should be taken care of, not forgotten. And if we accept them to happen, why
do we bother reporting them to workflow?
 
As a quick work-around: you could also explicitly model the behavior of the
branch that fails to handle these cases appropriately.
 
It's again a matter of personal taste & modeling style.
 
Kind regards,
Tomasz
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Pokraka, Michael [mailto:michael.pokraka at kcc.com]
Sent: Wednesday,2. October 2002 10:54
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Fork behaviour question
 
 
Greetings,
I've noticed the following annoying behaviour:
 
The workflow has a fork: 2 parallel & 1 necessary branch.
In the standard scenario, one branch completes, which causes the other to
cancel and life goes on.
 
However: If branch one has an error and branch two completes, nothing
further will happen until a manual restart. Its this the standard behaviour
as it's probably undesirable in a few (most?) scenarios I can think of
offhand - we don't care about errors as long as the necessary branches are
fulfilled.
 
Effectively this means I have to model redundant 'delete the other branch'
steps within forks to make sure things get done.
 
Is this by design or a bug?
 
Cheers
Michael
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain
privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from
disclosure under law.  If you have received this message in error, please
inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any
printed copy.   Thank you.
 
 ===========================================================================
==