Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| en:rule:conditional_event_collaboration [2024-08-28 18:05] – created Anatoly Belaychuk | en:rule:conditional_event_collaboration [2024-08-28 20:56] (current) – [See also] Anatoly Belaychuk | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ====== | + | ====== Use conditional event to model collaboration ====== |
| - | {{tag> | + | {{tag>collaboration |
| - | + | ||
| - | {{en: | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Short description. | + | |
| + | The message event creates a tight connection between processes: the sender process must know the internals of the receiver. | ||
| + | The conditional event allows more practical loosely coupled process architecture. | ||
| ===== ✔ How to ===== | ===== ✔ How to ===== | ||
| Line 513: | Line 511: | ||
| < | < | ||
| < | < | ||
| - | < | + | < |
| </ | </ | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| Line 575: | Line 573: | ||
| < | < | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | </ | ||
| < | < | ||
| < | < | ||
| - | < | ||
| - | </ | ||
| - | < | ||
| - | < | ||
| < | < | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| Line 640: | Line 640: | ||
| < | < | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| - | <bpmndi:BPMNEdge | + | <bpmndi:BPMNShape |
| - | <omgdi:waypoint | + | <omgdc:Bounds |
| - | <omgdi:waypoint x=" | + | <bpmndi:BPMNLabel |
| - | </ | + | </ |
| < | < | ||
| < | < | ||
| Line 656: | Line 656: | ||
| < | < | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| - | <bpmndi:BPMNShape | + | <bpmndi:BPMNEdge |
| - | <omgdc:Bounds | + | <omgdi:waypoint |
| - | <bpmndi:BPMNLabel> | + | <omgdi:waypoint |
| - | < | + | </ |
| - | </ | + | |
| - | </ | + | |
| < | < | ||
| < | < | ||
| Line 681: | Line 679: | ||
| ===== Notes ===== | ===== Notes ===== | ||
| - | * Extra comments (optional) | + | There is no significant difference between two models as long as excactly one process issues invoices. |
| + | The event-message scheme may look preferable since it more clearly shows the collaboration mechanism. | ||
| - | ===== Exceptions ===== | + | The situation changes if that the company has different sales processes for different product lines (goods, services) or channels (retail, partner, online). |
| + | In this case, the logic of the bank statement processing process becomes too complicated: | ||
| + | it will need a gateway to send a message to the process from which this specific invoice has come. | ||
| + | If a new variation of sales process emerges, the statement processing process should be modified. | ||
| - | * Exceptions, if any | + | The conditional event eliminates this dependency. |
| + | Now the processes don't need to know anything about each other' | ||
| + | * the client process (Order to pay) adds a record to the database table (Invoices) and waits until the value of the " | ||
| + | * the server process (Bank statement processing) searches the database table for the record to which the payment refers, and changes the status to " | ||
| + | * the client process awakens and continues working | ||
| + | |||
| + | There may be unlimited number of client and server processes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the case of an executable process model, the event message will be automatically processed by the engine. | ||
| + | If the process engine does not support a conditional event, it can be easily replaced with a combination of an exclusive gateway and a timer: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <bpmnio type=" | ||
| + | <?xml version=" | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | <process id=" | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | <task id=" | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | <task id=" | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | < | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the case of a non-executable model, the conditional event models an employee periodically pressing the F5 key | ||
| + | on the automated system page displaying a list of issued invoices together with status. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Exceptions ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Collaboration via event message is acceptable if it involves exactly two processes. | ||
| ===== See also ===== | ===== See also ===== | ||
| - | * References to similar rules (optional) | + | * [[external_event]] |
| + | * [[event_gateway_warning]] | ||
| + | * [[collapsed_subprocess]] | ||
| + | * [[single_process]] | ||
| ===== Author(s) ===== | ===== Author(s) ===== | ||
| - | Signature | + | --- // |
