Continuing from the most recent process definition version..

[logicalsid]

Hi...

jBPM uses a system wherein if we change the definition and deploy it ..... we get a new version.And the all old workflows in running or standby(wait mode) resume with the old version.....

Can we force the running or paused workflow to resume the execution from the newest/recent version of the process definition ???

Is it possible ???

thanks and regards,
Sidd

[kukeltje]

No, at least not in a supported way. I thnik you can find some infor in the forum on how to manipulate the database, so running processes will continue with the new version. Maybe the datamodel on the wiki can help with this as well.

[logicalsid]

Thanks a lot ,

I tried searching in the forums but couldnt find any definitive answer or any such examples of making running processes use the new process definition ......

any pointers ???

regards,
Sidd

[akakunin]

I suppose you will need to implement it by yourself and it will be very big job..., because I think it is not possible to implement such functionality for general process definitions.

As I understand concept of jBPM different versions of one process definition - are actually different process definitions only linked by same name.

So, new version of process definition may have completelly another structure. For already running process you have state - tokens placed in specified nodes, specified tasks assigned to specified swimlanes... but in new process you may have not these nodes, tasks and swimlanes because they was removed... So, rootToken placed in running process in nodeA, but from that node you will continue execution in new process definition?

So, I suppose for general case it is not possible to implement. If you have sume restirctions for versions (for example nodes should not be removed in new version - but only added, node names should not be changed and so on) you will able to implement some sort of switching to new version by yourself - but only specially for your cases

[kukeltje]

exactely. Couldn't have stated this more clearly

[logicalsid]

Okay.....wouldnt get the point in more direct way :-)..

thanks a lot,
Sidd