| Workflow with optional transition? [message #3785] | 
			Tue, 02 July 2013 05:55   | 
		 
		
			
				
				
				
					
						  
						jarg
						 Messages: 2 Registered: July 2013  Location: Oporto
						
					 | 
					Junior Member  | 
					 | 
		 
		 
	 | 
 
	
		Dear all, 
 
I'm playing a bit with Radicore and trying to model a very very simple workflow, in which one of the transitions is OPTIONAL. 
 
Specifically, we are trying to model the following (please check file attached for an easier to understand description): 
 
There is 1 place: 
P1 
 
There are 2 transitions: 
T1 
T2 
 
There are 5 arcs: 
Start -> T1, Inward, Or-Split (Implicit) 
Start -> T2, Inward, Or-Split (Implicit) 
T1->P1, Outward, Sequential 
P1->T2, Inward, Sequential 
T2->End, Outward, Sequential 
 
The idea is to make T1 optional. Ie, one can run T2 directly and the workflow finishes. But if T1 is ran, then T2 must ran afterwards too. 
Obviously we are getting the error: There is more than 1 type of INWARD ARC for transition 'T2' 
 
Do you have any suggestion about how to model this workflow topology? 
 
Thank you, 
Augusto
		
	- 
	
 
	Attachment: wf_v1.PNG
	 
	(Size: 11.78KB, Downloaded 2217 times)
 
 
		
		
 |  
	| 
		
	 | 
 
 
 | 
	| 
		
 | 
	
		
		
			| Re: Workflow with optional transition? [message #3787 is a reply to message #3786] | 
			Wed, 03 July 2013 09:53    | 
		 
		
			
				
				
				
					
						  
						jarg
						 Messages: 2 Registered: July 2013  Location: Oporto
						
					 | 
					Junior Member  | 
					 | 
		 
		 
	 | 
 
	
		Thanks for your answer, but I have two more questions if you don´t mind. 
 
The first one is: 
 
1. Why we can´t model more than 2 inwards or split (implicit)  arcs from one place? what is the reason for that?  
 
2. we are trying to model the following (please check file attached for an easier to understand description): 
 
There are 6 arcs: 
Start -> Approve, Inward, Or-Split (Implicit) 
Start -> Reject, Inward, Or-Split (Implicit) 
Approve->End, Outward, Sequential 
Reject-> Rejected, Outward, Sequential  
Rejected -> Undoreject, Inward, Sequential 
Undoreject -> start, Outward, Sequential 
 
We use arcs OR-Split(Implicit) again, but in this example we don´t need to use or-join. 
This example works fine, so the question is, is it really needed or-join arcs after the OR-SPlit (implicit) arcs?
		
		
		
 |  
	| 
		
	 | 
 
 
 | 
	| 
		
 |