How to make sure process step 1 complete before step 2

BLOMASKY

If I have a process with more than one step, I can either:
1) I can have 1 rule and add each step as a new action
2) I can have a rule for each step and each rule will then have one action
3) I can have the process only have 1 rule and with 2 actions, the 1st runs the step and the 2nd calls another processes to continue the logic.

Lets assume that there are no conditions to worry about, and lets forget about when I use a find with "BATCHES OF X",

But lets assume that each step takes a finite amount of time with some database access: i.e. Customer.currentBalance = SUM Order.amountOpen WHERE (Order IN Customers.ownsOrders)

Now, if the next step has to do something with Customers.currentBalance. Do I understand that if they are in the same rule, that the 2nd step might execute before the 1st has finished? (assuming DB is slow), If I put the 2nd step in the same process but in a diff. rule, will this take care of this or do I have to write a 2nd process?

Thanks

Bruce

RLJB

You have to write TWO processes to ensure 1 will complete the rules/actions before kicking off the second process.

BLOMASKY

If that is the case, then what about having a 2nd step in a process. That is only for additional conditional logic? and if Step 1 takes a "while" it will trigger 2nd step before it has completed? Is that the case?

thanks
bruce

tford

Bruce -- I believe the rules are processed sequentially and that AwareIM will wait until one is complete before the next is processed, but it's a great question.

The place where I've found you have to be really careful is with FIND and the assumptions you made about what is being acted upon after that FIND in a process.

It would be good to hear Vladimir confirm this though.

cchappell

It's been a few years since I have built an app in aware but, I am pretty sure that rules in a Process are run sequentially. Rules not in a process but instead attached to a business object are random(not sequential).

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

ACDC

I have always understood when it comes to process rules each action in the rule has to successfully complete before the next action is taken. This would also apply if the last action in the rule refers to another process. If anyone of the actions fail then the process aborts and roles back the previous successful actions. However if a process completes all its actions and then starts another process rule, once the second process has started there is no chance to role back the previous process from where it was started from - at least that's what I have come to work out over the years

Object rules work differently in that the priorities are automatically set based on the kind and the nature of the rule. So although it seems random its actually in accordance with the automatic priority that is assigned to the rule. Very often I have had to override the automatic priority setting of a rule to ensure certain rules get last priority - My experience here is the rules engine sometimes has a mind of its own and depending on the complexity of the object you need to take note of the priority of how the rules are fired.

The rules engine is the single most powerful feature of AwareIM, its what makes it the best out there