![]() The examples in this tutorial either deal with simple processes, or they diagram complex processes superficially so that the models fit on one page. One thing to remember is that if you strive to harmonize your functional and technical process models to achieve a better alignment of business and IT, you inevitably face this type of process modeling whether you use BPMN or not. We will show the usefulness of this new thinking by example. In the medium and long terms, however, avoiding pools denies you a powerful device for increasing the significance of process models. That’s traditional, and it’s a pragmatic solution during, say, a transitional period that allows your co-workers to adapt. You can eliminate pools and work just with lanes, modeling the message exchange as normal tasks as shown before. What does that signify, however, for purely functional process modeling, in which you also describe processes not controlled by such a process engine? There’s no general answer to that question. Have you heard of service orchestration in connection with Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)? That’s almost exactly the task of a process engine, except that these services are not only fully automated web services they also can be tasks executed by human process participants as directed by the process engine. So the process engine equates to the mysterious, almighty process conductor. In that world, the process engine controls all tasks in the process, even though different task managers may execute them. Even though BPMN lanes look very much like those of other process notations, they represent an entirely different way of thinking, which we attribute to BPMN’s origin in the world of process automation. It reveals a basic principle, however, that you must understand. Well, we could equally assign before the loop starts but that feels semantically odd to me.That seems complicated – and you don’t have to choose this method for practical modeling. Then we can assign to the var parameter after the loop has completed. We declare a local which we can then capture. TParallel.&For(0, high(LocalMap), procedure(i: integer) You need to use something along these lines: procedure TestParallel(var map: TArray>) See Anonymous Methods Variable Binding:Ī key feature of anonymous methods is that they may reference variables that are visible to them where they were defined. For a var parameter, the compiler has no knowledge of where the variable is declared. The compiler has to be able to see that a capture is necessary when compiling the function that declares the variable. That fails to compile because var parameters cannot be captured. Always post real code, complete code if at all possible, as minimal as you can.Īs for your real code, that you have just posted, that looks like this: procedure TestParallel(var map: data) The big lesson here, is never to post fake code. Either you are using a different compiler from me, or have different code from me.Īnd indeed, from your question update, it turns out that you have not posted the code that does not compile. I cannot explain why you are unable to compile this code. The local variable i in TestParallel is unused, as the compiler observes, and should be removed. This code, identical to that in the question, compiles in both dcc32 and dcc64, on Delphi XE7 update 1. So, how to make this work as simple as possible? Yes, above code compiles, and the following is not (if the map array is passed as var parameter) typeīut unfortunately, the compiler says: Project2.dpr(70): E2555 Cannot capture symbol 'map' TParallel.&For(0, u, procedure(i: integer) so I try to convert a small piece of code, such as: procedure TestParallel I just know From Delphi XE7 there is Parallel.For which is cool.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |