on 02-05-2007 4:54 PM
Hi everybody once again
Can someone gives a hint on how to avoid the next start of a BPM instance? We currently have a process which first should be finished before the next of the same process should be able to start. That means, is there a check I can use to verifiy if a BPM instance of an integration process is already running, if yes, then do not start the next instance?
Thanks in advance
Oliver
Hi,
don't use a BPM and put everything in one queue (EOIO)
starting from the sender adapter
Regards,
michal
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Good morning everybody
All your answerers are very helpful. Thanks for it.
The most interesting is of course the switch to a EOIO scenario, because there are possibilities to avoid the BPM. I think I will try it.
But anyhow, your answerers figured out, that we have currently no possibilities to check running BPM instances. I already thought about the sending of a file or updating an existing table in a i.e. access database to log the status of the process instant. But this will enlarge the process and will only be relevant in non time critical processes.
Anyhow thanks to all your answerers.
Oliver
A round about way is like this
Use a send step as last step which creates a file. Use this file as additional trigger to start the BPM
In that way when the previous BPM instance is done,it will create the file as last step .The next instance of BPM will only start when this file is available .
Bipin
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
I hadnt thought of the file writing, I was thinking more along the lines of something Semaphore based.
I imagine files would work fine but it's one of those slightly grey ways of doing things that I'd like to avoid if possible as it's quite non standard.
Perhaps worth raising this with SAP as an enhancement request, as there's at least two of us that have come up with a need for this?
If you switch to no-bpm you may run into restrictions in your error handling etc (catching errors from mapping in order to trigger other interfaces for example), although this may be addressed in new sps versions.
I created a similar post:
Cheers
James.
Are you sure you are using the BPM in the correct way ?
May be that the 1st instance and 2nd instance are correlated in some way, in this case you can use correlation in order to manage the furher message.
Another way is to make a loop in the BPM with a send step that makes a lookup that check the end of the previous BPM. Can be an RFC on XI it self.
Regards
Sandro
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
User | Count |
---|---|
101 | |
13 | |
13 | |
11 | |
11 | |
7 | |
6 | |
5 | |
4 | |
4 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.