[rules-users] Drools Flow: Validation Chain Approach

[tolitius]

Hey David,

    Yea, that would be a valid approach in some of the cases, but..

    In this case the client would like to see ( explicit ) nodes in a
process definition. The reason for this is that a certain chain of
validators may include nodes that invoke validation on external systems,
e.g.:

               Validation One Node     ( may be a RuleFlow node )
                            ||
                            \/
               Validation Two Node     ( call external system A to validate
)
                            ||
                            \/
               Validation Three Node   ( may be a RuleFlow node again that
would know that system A validation has passed )
                            ||
                            \/
               Validation Four Node    ( call external system B to validate
)

                        ...  ... ...

    So, yes, it in theory all can be done in one method/rulegroup all
together, but then it defeats the purpose of the "process definition" that
can directly map to the business requirements ( and more importantly change
visually when requirements change ).

But thanks for your input, I will appreciate anything else you may have :)
/Anatoly
-- 
View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Flow-Validation-Chain-Approach-tp861911p866675.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.