is this a valid BPN definition

As we transition to the new Hyland Community, some post links may be temporarily disrupted as we finalize redirects. We apologize for the inconvenience and are working to resolve this as quickly as possible. Details.

priyanshu

afaust

This is just a graphical representation of a definition, not a definition in itself. Technically, it appears valid. The bigger question is, if a specific implementation of a BPMN engine will process it correctly / as expected at runtime.

Personally, I prefer to pair each forking gateway up with exactly one joining gateway, and not abuse one joining gateway to aggregate flows from multiple forking ones. In your definition, you have 3 forking gateways and only one joining one. It is also quite uncommon (yet technically allowed) to have a task behaviour with two incoming sequence flows - typically you'll see a (exclusive) gateway to combine multiple sequence flows into a single one before going into a task.

I also don't get your use of the parallel gateway before the end event. Why would you want to have a parallel fork, where one flow immediately terminates and the other starts from the beginning? Wouldn't it logically be more approriate to use an exclusive gateway to make the determination to either stop the process or continue it (a sort-of loop continuation decision)?