@kukeltje: Many thanks for your immediate reply! anonymous wrote : Yes, it is understandable what you want to achieve, process wise. What I still do not understand is why you try to implement it by run-time modifying of the processdefinition. This is because I want to give the user the possibility to model his/her process in jBPM and, separated from that, define a set of business rules that should hold. Thus my validation mechanism is to function on any process no matter how it is modelled. The only thing that needs to be done by my "validation tool" in the XML-file of the process itself is to add the ActionHandler to each TaskNode programmatically. anonymous wrote : | Questions: | - If you do not want the 'next' task to show up directly, when do you want it to show up and is there any trigger for it | Ok I want, in case any of the rules fires, the process to stop, a new TaskInstance (which in my current implementation is outside of the current process in a kind of "alert process" only holding this one Task with the error message) to be displayed, and after the user clicked on that task instance that showed up (I assume that the user changes some data in his backend systems in order to make the system "rule conform" again) the process should be continued. So I thought a call of processInstance.suspend() at the moment when the rule fires and a processInstance.resume() at that moment when the TaskInstance of the "alert process" is executed would be best. anonymous wrote : | - what if the info entered for it is still not correct? | Well as explained above the user does not necessarily need to enter new information, his information is assumed to be changed in the backend by the user / other users. Ok but the question persists: Well, the best solution would be, that the rules are validated again right away and the main process would only continue if this time everything is conform with all rules. So best would be if the ActionHandler which fires the rules or a similar ActionHandler would be called again somehow at this point. But for now I am Ok with a situation where I just assume that the user corrects his data after I told him that someting is incorrect (through the TaskInstance of the "alert process"), so the rules do not need to fire again and the main process should just continue execution. anonymous wrote : | - Why not just use a jsf validator on the input field that requires the entry to be > 4 | Because of the requirement that the rules do not belong to a specific process and the entries are not necessariliy made through process variables Any hints for solving this issue? Many thanks again for your help! Cheers, Maurice View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4047061#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...