I am creating an activity diagram
Admin log in to the web
If validated, it reaches the dashboard
Through dashboard it can manage account, manage product and manages issues
after performing one of above options, it can go back to dashboard or logout from system.
I have used fork/join, is it correct or I should be using decision/merge instead
2ndly, is the procedure of logging out or performing another option available in dashboard correctly defined?
Your activity is having several issues.
First and most severe, it will not do anything because actions (and mostly those - not all model elements in activities) having an "implicit and sematics" for incomming control flows. This means that an action is only executed when an token is offered on ALL incomming control flow actions, otherwise it waits. So as your control flow from validate can not offer an token before Login has been executed and finished, you are having a lock. And nothing is executed. The same applies to Dashboard. To solve this you need to model merge nodes.
The second point is that you only want to execute (according to your description) one of the manage actions. (Btw. names with generic verbs like "manage", "maintain", "do", "perform", etc. are quite bad names for actions, use more specific ones instead). Your model executes, irregardless of the selection in the dashboard action, all manage actions concurrently. Concurrently means in an arbitrary order and does not demand a parallel execution. Thus you should replace the fork with a decision node, where the conditions on the outgoing flows are based on the selection from the dashboard. An decision node can have an arbitrary (but finite) number of outgoing control flows. All the outgoing control flows from the manage actions are merged using a merge node instead of a join node. As the join node would wait for an incommingtoken per incomming control flow.
A minor point, that would be solved when using an UML/SysML tool is that the fork and join nodes are bars and not rectangular frames.
Your AD has 2 flaws. First a fork/join is a solid thick line, but not a hollow rectangle. Second, it's used wrongly. This way you run all Manage actions in parallel and continue when they are all finished. According to your description use a diamond to decide for one of the actions Also use the diamond afterwards to merge the flows and continue to Logout.
Related
I am trying to make an activity diagram of a user for my system and I am unsure if the flow should come down to a Join Node or Merge Node before the user can log off. Here is the one I have made sa of now. Could anyone explain to me what's the difference?
It must be a join (though I first remembered wrongly and thanks to #AxelScheithauer pointing out my error). P. 401 of UML 2.5
15.5.3.1 Executable Nodes
...
When an ExecutableNode completes an execution, the control token representing that execution is removed from the ExecutableNode and control tokens are offered on all outgoing ControlFlows of the ExecutableNode. That is, there is an implicit fork of the flow of control from the ExecutableNode to its outgoing ControlFlows.
That means that all 6 actions below will start in parallel which does not mean they must run concurrently. But all of them need completion in order to continue after the join below. (I doubt that this is desired.)
There's a (double) 2nd flaw in the top decision back-flows. They need to go back to the top merge. Otherwise neither Login nor Register would start since they expect 3 or 2 tokens where only one would arrive.
I have two processes I want to juxtapose. The first is a Manual workflow that is well represented by the Process library. The second is a software System that performs the same work, but is better modelled as a state transition system (e.g. s/w component level).
Now in AnyLogic, state models are for agents, that can run through processes with animations (counts), or move across space. What if I want to use a state chart to run an agent through? so I have a System state chart/agent and a Job state chart/agent?
I want Jobs from Population A to go through the Manual process flow chart and Jobs from Population B to go through the System state flow chart, so I can juxtapose the processing costs. I then calculate various delays and resource allocations for each of the Jobs going through and compare them.
Can anyone explain how to setup a state chart as the base process, another agent will go through? Is this even possible?
Please help
Thanks
This will not work as you would like it to, for these reasons:
You can't send an Agent into a flowchart. (Not sure how AnyLogic is handling it internally, maybe a generic token, or no flow at all, just changes to the state).
In AnyLogic there can only be one state active (simple or combined state) per state chart, so you can't represent a population with several members.
Agents can't be in more then one flow at a time, so even if it would be possible to insert an Agent into a statechart, this limitation would also apply.
The conclusion of this is: State charts are suitable for modeling individual behaviour (inside one Agent), whereas process flows can be both used for individual behaviour (inside one Agent, running a dummy Agent through) as well as for groups (multiple Agents running through process).
The normal use case would be to add the state chart to the Agent type running through your process flow (as you already noted in your question), applying the changes caused by the state chart to the individual agent.
I would want expose a little scenario which is still at paper state, and which, regarding DDD principle seem a bit tedious to accomplish.
Let's say, I've an application for hosting accounts management. Basically, the application compose several bounded contexts such as Web accounts management, Ftp accounts management, Mail accounts management... each of them represented by their own AR (they can live standalone).
Now, let's imagine I want to provide a UI with an HTML form that compose one fieldset for each bounded context, for instance to update limits and or features. How should I process exactly to update all AR without breaking single transaction per request principle? Can I create a kind of "outer" AR, let's say a ClientHostingProperties AR which would holds references to other AR and update them as part of single transaction, using own repository? Or should I better create an AR that emit messages to let's listeners provided by the bounded contexts react on, in which case, I should probably think about ES?
Thanks.
How should I process exactly to update all AR without breaking single transaction per request principle?
You are probably looking for a process manager.
Basic sketch: persisting the details from the submitted form is a transaction unto itself (you are offered an opportunity to accrue business value; step 1 is to capture that opportunity).
That gives you a way to keep track of whether or not this task is "done": you compare the changes in the task to the state of the system, and fire off commands (to run in isolated transactions) to make changes.
Processes, in my mind, end up looking a lot like state machines. These tasks are commands are done, these commands are not done, these commands have failed: now what? and eventually reach a state where there are no additional changes to be made, and this instance of the process is "done".
Short answer: You don't.
An aggregate is a transactional boundary, which means that if you would update multiple aggregates in one "action", you'd have to use multiple transactions. The reason for an aggregate to be equivalent to one transaction is that this allows you to guarantee consistency.
This means that you have two options:
You can make your aggregate larger. Then you can actually guarantee consistency, but your ability to handle concurrent requests gets worse. So this is usually what you want to avoid.
You can live with the fact that it's two transactions, which means you are eventually consistent. If so, you usually use something such as a process manager or a flow to handle updating multiple aggregates. In its simplest form, a flow is nothing but a simple if this event happens, run that command rule. In its more complex form, it has its own state.
Hope this helps 😊
Greetings SO denizens!
I'm trying to architect an overhaul of an existing NodeJS application that has outgrown its original design. The solutions I'm working towards are well beyond my experience.
The system has ~50 unique async tasks defined as various finite state machines which it knows how to perform. Each task has a required set of parameters to begin execution which may be supplied by interactive prompts, a database or from the results of a previously completed async task.
I have a UI where the user may define a directed graph ("the flow"), specifying which tasks they want to run and the order they want to execute them in with additional properties associated with both the vertices and edges such as extra conditionals to evaluate before calling a child task(s). This information is stored in a third normal form PostgreSQL database as a "parent + child + property value" configuration which seems to work fairly well.
Because of the sheer number of permutations, conditionals and absurd number of possible points of failure I'm leaning towards expressing "the flow" as a state machine. I merely have just enough knowledge of graph theory and state machines to implement them but practically zero background.
I think what I'm trying to accomplish is at the flow run time after user input for the root services have been received, is somehow compile the database representation of the graph + properties into a state machine of some variety.
To further complicate the matter in the near future I would like to be able to "pause" a flow, save its state to memory, load it on another worker some time in the future and resume execution.
I think I'm close to a viable solution but if one of you kind souls would take mercy on a blind fool and point me in the right direction I'd be forever in your debt.
I solved similar problem few years ago as my bachelor and diploma thesis. I designed a Cascade, an executable structure which forms growing acyclic oriented graph. You can read about it in my paper "Self-generating Programs – Cascade of the Blocks".
The basic idea is, that each block has inputs and outputs. Initially some blocks are inserted into the cascade and inputs are connected to outputs of other blocks to form an acyclic graph. When a block is executed, it reads its inputs (cascade will pass values from connected outputs) and then the block sets its outputs. It can also insert additional blocks into the cascade and connect its inputs to outputs of already present blocks. This should be equal to your task starting another task and passing some parameters to it. Alternative to setting output to an value is forwarding a value from another output (in your case waiting for a result of some other task, so it is possible to launch helper sub-tasks).
If I have ,say, 2 screens. First is the prompt screen which asks for, say, some record key and the next screen displays the information about the record.
Now when I want to transfer the control to the second screen (after doing the job of the 1st screen) I can do that by :
exec cics
return(trans-id)
commarea(ws-commarea)
end exec.
where trans-id is that of the 2nd screen.
Then what is need for using a calling function such as xctl when we already have the return() available in cics?
Using XCTL or LINK or dynamic CALLs confines your processing to one CICS transaction.
If you so desire, you can design your application to spread different business functions across multiple transactions, passing data with a commarea.
Historically this wasn't done for a number of reasons. Thirty years ago, some CICS Systems Programmers felt transaction IDs were a limited resource and encouraged application designers to keep processing to the minimum number of transactions possible.
Security in CICS is handled at the transaction level, so your user must have authority to execute all transactions that comprise the business function they must perform.
Resources such as temporary storage queues are often named in part using the transaction ID to differentiate and keep them separate.
Prior to CICS TS version 2 (I think) the data to be shared between those transactions was limited to the size of a commarea (32K). All supported versions of CICS now have channels and containers, allowing you to pass significantly larger amounts of data.
My experience is that it is simpler to code and easier to maintain pseudo-conversational transactions with screen interactions if the code is all in one transaction. You really want your transactions to be pseudo-conversational or non conversational. I believe this to be the overriding reason you see transactions designed to use XCTL, LINK, or dynamic CALLs.
XCTL also doesn't allow dynamic routing (you always stay in the same CICS region), and is one way only. Pseudo-conversational return as above will let the user update the screen, and then only when they press an Attention Identifier (such as Enter) will the next program run. XCTL will run immediately.