Unexpected Behavior for ccBPM Deadline Branch

[Former Member]

Hi, Friends:

I have a following BPM scenario:

I receive a input messages and append to muti-line container elements until certain time reaches, saying 16:00.

Once Deadline reaches, we execute multi-mapping, generate 6 messages on the target side, then we send all 6 messages out and create files in a folder.

Everything works fine so far, except if the time of execution passed deadline, (saying if we execute at 16:30), now the deadline time has already reached, I expect that all 6 files are created immediately.

However, what I saw is that 4 files are created immediately(some times 3 files), and 2 other files are created half hour later.

I checked work flow items, during the half hour wait time, the fourth send step status is Ready, not completed as other 4 send steps.

Any idea and inputs

Thanks

Liang

[madhusudana_reddy2]

Hi Lianj,

I am suspecting that you are using some value (may be from payload) as correlation. Make sure that your are using a constant null as correlation(because you are collecting messages irrespective of correlation value).

thanks,

madhu

[Former Member]

Hi, madhu:

Thanks for the input, for Correlation, I used constant value "1", when I activate correlation, I put "1" there as well to make sure it matches the value. It is working fine when execute time is before deadline. When deadline reaches, all the files are created at almost same time.

When the execution is after deadline, so there is only one input message, this message triggered the process immediately, this includes exception block. I am not sure at this moment, when correlation is activated, it is still wait for other input message or not, since the deadline reaches, it should not wait any more message.

Any thoughs

Liang

[Former Member]

Any ideas for this issue.

Sometimes, even my execution time is before deadline, when deadline reaches, all 6 files are sent in about half hour delay, I do not know what happens for BPM.

Liang

[Former Member]

I would like to raise the problem again, to see any more inputs for this unexpected behavior

Regards

Liang

[sunil_singh13]

Hi,

Check this Note : 898301

Thanks,

Sunil Singh

[Former Member]

Close for now, no update