IC SunsetThe developerWorks Connections platform will be sunset on December 31, 2019. On January 1, 2020, this community and its apps will no longer be available. More details available on our FAQ.
Topic
  • 2 replies
  • Latest Post - ‏2019-02-19T13:34:12Z by frisalde
frisalde
frisalde
119 Posts

Pinned topic TIM. Setting the root process result

‏2019-02-12T12:10:28Z | activity; customize isim; itim; process; workflow; workflowruntimecontext;

Hi guys,
I am customizating some workflows to add new extensions (actitivies). For instance, the change password operation will restore the inactive account at the same time. 

Doing these changings, I have realized that it is always included next code in the PostScript of any extension:

WorkflowRuntimeContext.setProcessResult(WorkflowRuntimeContext.getActivityResult());
WorkflowRuntimeContext.setProcessResultDetail(WorkflowRuntimeContext.getActivityResultDetail());

 

Is it really needed or it comes from elder ISIM releases? 

 

I mean, I know that it is supposed to be used for "forwarding" the activity result to the parent process but, does it make sense it is not the default behaviour of the extensions? 

 

If not so, ie, it is mandatory to add these code for setting the process result rightly, it should be better documented, and regardless, does it aim to allow some activities not to "forward" its result to the parent process? Really, I am not able to find out when this behaviour could be used.

  • franzw
    franzw
    519 Posts
    ACCEPTED ANSWER

    Re: TIM. Setting the root process result

    ‏2019-02-12T19:00:53Z  

    They are there as artifacts of the history of ISIM AFAIK.

    Isn't a little strange that this is found in something called "extensions" - the basic idea was that you could extend ITIM with home brewed  workflow activities "extensions" also documented as such in the workflowextensions.xml file in the ISIM_HOME/data directory...

    I believe this makes sense as extensions should not be "bound" by normal rules as you suggest - if you look at all the other "boxes" (rfi/mail/script etc.) they do not have these statements.

    I believe the developers realized that the extension model was much easier to handle when adding new functionality to the workflows than doing it "right" - so when they had invented the extension model this was used for all new functional enhancements - the only exception to this I know is the "Mail" box - but that is really just a "Workorder" where "wait for completion" is removed...

    HTH

    Regards

    Franz Wolfhagen

  • franzw
    franzw
    519 Posts

    Re: TIM. Setting the root process result

    ‏2019-02-12T19:00:53Z  

    They are there as artifacts of the history of ISIM AFAIK.

    Isn't a little strange that this is found in something called "extensions" - the basic idea was that you could extend ITIM with home brewed  workflow activities "extensions" also documented as such in the workflowextensions.xml file in the ISIM_HOME/data directory...

    I believe this makes sense as extensions should not be "bound" by normal rules as you suggest - if you look at all the other "boxes" (rfi/mail/script etc.) they do not have these statements.

    I believe the developers realized that the extension model was much easier to handle when adding new functionality to the workflows than doing it "right" - so when they had invented the extension model this was used for all new functional enhancements - the only exception to this I know is the "Mail" box - but that is really just a "Workorder" where "wait for completion" is removed...

    HTH

    Regards

    Franz Wolfhagen

  • frisalde
    frisalde
    119 Posts

    Re: TIM. Setting the root process result

    ‏2019-02-19T13:34:12Z  
    • franzw
    • ‏2019-02-12T19:00:53Z

    They are there as artifacts of the history of ISIM AFAIK.

    Isn't a little strange that this is found in something called "extensions" - the basic idea was that you could extend ITIM with home brewed  workflow activities "extensions" also documented as such in the workflowextensions.xml file in the ISIM_HOME/data directory...

    I believe this makes sense as extensions should not be "bound" by normal rules as you suggest - if you look at all the other "boxes" (rfi/mail/script etc.) they do not have these statements.

    I believe the developers realized that the extension model was much easier to handle when adding new functionality to the workflows than doing it "right" - so when they had invented the extension model this was used for all new functional enhancements - the only exception to this I know is the "Mail" box - but that is really just a "Workorder" where "wait for completion" is removed...

    HTH

    Regards

    Franz Wolfhagen

    It makes sense. I'll include the metioned code in my workflow customizations.

     

    Thanks for your answer.