Uploaded image for project: 'JBoss BPMS Platform'
  1. JBoss BPMS Platform
  2. RHBPMS-2003

Simulation results: Unable to control parallel executions of OR gateway

XMLWordPrintable

    • ?
    • 0
    • 0% 0%
    • Hide
      Using the OR gateway in jBPM Designer may yield invalid simulation results, as not all possible sequence flows are always simulated. This happens due to the lack of support for better control of simulation in the BPSim standard. The simulation currently supports only the XOR and AND gateways. There is currently no workaround.
      Show
      Using the OR gateway in jBPM Designer may yield invalid simulation results, as not all possible sequence flows are always simulated. This happens due to the lack of support for better control of simulation in the BPSim standard. The simulation currently supports only the XOR and AND gateways. There is currently no workaround.

      Description of problem:
      I am not sure about functionality of OR gateway. Validation in Designer says that sum of probability has to be equal to 100%. But if I set this then OR gateway has same behaviour as XOR (each branch was executed separately).

      So how I can model parallel execution of branches?
      For example:
      3 branches A,B,C and I want to simulate that A is executed with B but not C.

      Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
      BPMS 6.0.0 ER7

      Actual results:
      Example for 3 branches:
      Case1 (there was executed less instances than was required)
      #instances 10 100 (A: 10%, B: 10%, C: 10%)
      only A: 1 10
      only B: 1 10
      only C: 1 10
      A,B - 1
      A,C - 1
      B,C - 1
      A,B,C - -
      Sum 3 33

      Case2 (branch C was not executed)
      #instances 10 100 (A: 50%, B: 50%, C: 50%)
      only A: 5 50
      only B: 5 50
      only C: - -
      A,B - -
      A,C - -
      B,C - -
      A,B,C - -
      Sum 10 100

      Case3 (no combination and # A instances is not similar to #B instances)
      #instances 10 100 (A: 33%, B: 33%, C: 50%)
      only A: 3 33
      only B: 2 17
      only C: 5 50
      A,B - -
      A,C - -
      B,C - -
      A,B,C - -
      Sum 10 100

      Expected results:

      Option #1
      ---------
      The common sense for probability of each branches (in case OR gateway) says:

      • A: 50% for # process instancies 100 means that # A instancies is 50 and I do not care if branch A was executed separately or parallel with branch B or C.
      • Case 1 - is invalid and simulation should not run
      • Case 2 - choose randomly one of these executions

      #instances 10 (A: 50%, B: 50%, C: 50%)
      only A: 3 | 3 | 2 | 5
      only B: 2 | 2 | 2 | -
      only C: - | 2 | 3 | -
      A,B - | - | 1 | -
      A,C 2 | 2 | - | -
      B,C 3 | 2 | - | 5
      A,B,C - | 1 | 2 | -
      Sum 10 |10 |10 |10

      • Restrictions for this behaviour
      • each branch has probability in range 0-100
      • sum of probabilities for OR gate must be grater than 100
      • max. sum of probabilities is #branches x 100
      • This behaviour has these positives:
        -> the user controls number of execution for each branch
        -> the user knows that some branches will be executed parallel with other branches
        -> A: 100%, B: 100%, C: 100% -> OR has same behaviour as Parallel gateway
        -> P(A)+P(B)+P(C)=100 -> OR has same behaviour as XOR gateway
      • This behaviour has these negatives:
        -> the user are not able to express which combinations of branches are more probable

      Option #2
      I am not able to find it, but the actual implementation is not optimal. Please send here some resources about a behaviour of the actual (desired) implementation.

      Additional info:

            swiderski.maciej Maciej Swiderski (Inactive)
            smala_jira Sona Mala (Inactive)
            Kirill Gaevskii Kirill Gaevskii
            Tomas 'Sheldon' Radej Tomas 'Sheldon' Radej
            Kirill Gaevskii Kirill Gaevskii
            Kris Verlaenen, Rajesh Rajasekaran, Tomas 'Sheldon' Radej
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: