Does someone know if the following BPMN model is correct?
I'm not sure here because of XOR gateway within the parallel gateway.
After some research I found the solution.
The example above is not correct.
Instead of the normal end event, a termination event must be used. This event terminates the whole process immediately and removes all other tokens.
This would be the correct solution:
Related
I know in BPMN there is just a "start event" for each pool. In my case I have a pool that can begin when a message is caught or because the actor decide to do it by his own decision.
How can I model that? I'm not sure I can use an event-based exclusive XOR.
Maybe a complex gateway?
As stated in many best practice how-tos, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to use multiple start events in a pool. BPMN specification 1.2 contains this note too:
9.3.2.
...
It is RECOMMENDED that
this feature be used sparingly and that
the modeler be aware that other readers of the Diagram may have difficulty
understanding the intent of the Diagram.
...
On the other side, the common rule for the case with omitted start event is
If the Start Event is not used, then all Flow Objects that do not have
an incoming Sequence Flow SHALL be instantiated when the Process is instantiated.
I assume this will be fair enough for the case of manual process start too. Even if the process has only message start event it will be correctly started because Message Start Event is a fair flow object with no incoming sequence flow and thus it complies to the above rule.
However, if you want to be 100% sure the process will go the way you want then the Event Based Exclusive Gateway (which is available since version 1.1) is your choice. Placing it before multiple different start events will make the process choose either of them for start.
Further explanation can be found in this blog.
Unlimited process instances
If you don't mind that during execution of your process the pool could be used multiple times (e. g. once started by a message and 3 times by an actor) then you can simply use multiple start events (BPMN 1.2 PDF Spec 9.3.2 page 37 allows this):
Single instance
If you can only allow a single run of the pool, you might have to instantiate it manually at the start of your execution and then decide whether to use it and when. Here is an example of how this can be done:
The Event-Based Gateway (Spec 9.5.2.4) will "decide" what to do with your pool:
If Actor decides to start or a message comes from the main pool, some actions will take place;
If the process is "sure" that additional pool will not be required, a signal is cast to terminate its instance.
I have a web application that uses the jquery autocomplete plugin, which essentially sends via ajax a request containing text that has been typed into a textbox to our web server, once the web server receives this request, it is then handed off to rabbitmq.
I know that we do get benefits from using messaging, but it seems like using it for blocking rpc calls is a misuse and that something like WCF is far more appropriate in this instance, is this the case or is it considered acceptable architecture?
It's possible to perform RPC synchronous requests with RabbitMQ. Here it's explained very well, with its drawback included! So it's considered an acceptable architecture. Discouraged, but acceptable whenever the synchronous response is mandatory.
As a possible counter-effect is that adding RabbitMQ in the middle, you will add some latency to the solution.
However you have the possibility to gain in terms of reliability, flexibility, scalability,...
What benefit would you get from it? And in fairness if you put the message in the queue how is is synchronous? unless the same process that placed the message in the queue is the one removing it, but that is pretty much useless no?
Now, if all you want to do is place the message in the queue and process it later on is grand.
Also the fact that you had WCF to the mixture is IMHO a symptom that something is perhaps not clear enough. You could use WCF as an API gateway and use it to write the message to the queue so this is not really about WCF or Queues, but more like sync vs async.
The way you are putting your ideas, does not look alright to me.
I have implemented client server program using boost::asio library.
In my implementation there are times when io_service.run() blocks indefinitely. In case I pass another request to io_service, the blocked call begins to execute normally.
Is there any way to see what are the pending requests inside the io_service queue ?
I have not used work object to block the run call!
There are no official ways to query into the io_service to find all pending request. However, there are a few techniques to debug the problem:
Boost 1.47 introduced handler tracking. Simply define BOOST_ASIO_ENABLE_HANDLER_TRACKING and Boost.Asio will write debug output, including timestamps, an identifier, and the operation type, to the standard error stream.
Attach a debugger dig through the layers to find and examine operation queues. This answer covers both understanding handler tracking and using a debugger to examine an operation queue for the epoll_reactor.
Finally, if you believe it is a bug, then it may be worth updating to the latest version or checking the revision history for relevant changes. Regardless, describing the problem in more detail may allow others to help identify the source of the problem and potential solutions.
Now i spent a few hours reading and experimenting (i need more boost::asio functionality for work as well) and it turns out: Kind of.
But it is not as straightforward or readable as one might hope.
Under the hood (well, under the outermost hood) io_service has a bunch of other services registered, which do the work async_ operations of their respective fields require.
These are the "Services" described in the reference.
Now sadly, the services stay registered, wether there is work to do or not. For example if your io_service has a udp socket, it will still have all the corresponding services, even if the socket itself is inactive.
But you can ask your io_service which services it has. Lets say you want to know wether your io_service called m_io_service has an udp datagram_socket_service. Then you can call something like:
if (boost::asio::has_service<boost::asio::datagram_socket_service<boost::asio::ip::udp> >(m_io_service))
{
//Whatever
}
That does not help a lot, because it will be true no matter wether the socket is active or not. But after you know, that you have that service, you can get a ref to it using use_service instead of has_service but with the same elegant amount of <>.
And now you can inspect the service to see what it is up to. Sadly, it will not tell you what the outstanding handlers names are (probably partly because it does not know them) but if it is a socket, you can get its implemention_type and with that check whether it currently is_open or find either the local_endpoint as well as the remote_endpoint.
In case of a deadline_timer_service you can, among other stuff, find out when it expires_at.
See the reference for more information what the service is and is not willing to tell you.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_54_0/doc/html/boost_asio/reference.html
This information should then hopefully allow you to determine which async_ operation did not return.
And if not, at the very least you can cancel any unexpectedly active services.
I have a feature I'm attempting to implement using NServiceBus but not sure the pattern to use here. (I'm fairly new to NServiceBus)
I'll try to explain where my uncertainty comes from:
User interaction triggers MVC controller to send a command to perform a domain operation. This command raises an event to notify others that this occurred.
A handler that subscribes to this event determines whether or not another domain operation should occur.
This is where I'm unclear as to the proper pattern to follow. At this point should the event handler:
just make the changes required?
send a new command to do it? If so, send it back to the originating service/process?
another option?
Part of me is wondering if I should be using an in-proc domain event to handle this, but I don't think the first command should have to wait on the second one before it returns. In fact it could happen much later. That is why I went the route of using the bus to handle it async. Also, an email will need to be generated once the second operation finishes. Should that be triggered from yet another event/command?
Any and all guidance appreciated.
If there is no need to wait for the second action then yes, it should be done asynchronously so the processing of the first command should publish an NServiceBus event. The handler for that event would (likely) be hosted in a separate endpoint which would then just do the work - no need to send another command there.
To add to Udi's answer, I would only turn around and send a command back to the originating service if the service at the originating endpoint is really the one that should be responsible for the behavior of that command. Otherwise, the service (endpoint) receiving the event should just do what it needs to do in response to the event (which sounds like your case).
I'm writing an API which is used to receive some data from another application. Currently the function is designed to block until data is received. In my mind this limits developers using the API to use multithreading or some sort of multi-process design. So is it better for a function to block or to return a null and then sleep for a few milliseconds before trying again.
Note the other application may not have any data to send through the API for an unknown period of time.
The API is written in C++
Why not use a callback?
You could define the API to allow the user to pass an optional timeout value. If the timeout is not specified, then the API function waits indefinitely, much like how select() works.
Consider another option: use an async transaction -> issue a request & provide a callback address with ticket id. When the response is available, the service end-point callbacks your application with the ticket id and of your the result ;-)
You should avoid as must as possible blocking when you possibly can.
As you say:
Note the other application may not have any data to send through the API for an unknown period of time.
In this case, using a synchronous interface ties up resources unnecessarily.
You haven't said what language this is, but it sounds like your API is listening or checking for some event, and the users of the API are either blocking or polling your API to determine if the event happened?
Is it possible to use a callback? Users of the API would register for notifications of the event happening, and when your library detects the event it will use the callback to notify all listeners.
When your applications calls the O/S api function read(), do you expect it to block? Of course you do—at least by default. In some circumstances, ioctl's allow a programmer to change the behavior to be asynchronous, which is particularly common in network applications.
You've shed very little light on what your API is about, so consider:
Does it make sense that an API user would want to be blocked? That is, is there little to do until it returns.
If you were writing an application for the API, what would you expect it to do? You should definitely write a few sample applications for your own education, as well as to document the API.
Is there any reason why the API user would not multithread (or fork, etc.) requests to the API?
If you want a reusable solution you could apply the Asynchronous Design 'Pattern' which is common in .NET but can also be implemented in C++ as demonstrated in this CodeProject project.
There's nothing wrong with providing both synchronous and asynchronous calls to the same feature in the interface.
Personally I would only go these lengths if I need to service multiple requests (in which case you can queue 'BeginOperation' requests for example), or there are many potentially asynchronous operations in the interface (and I want a standardised, flexible pattern). If you can only handle one request at a time a time-out is usually sufficient.