i've been trying to figure out how to deal with Business Rules in the following format:
a booking has 1 to n (n = 200) articles
problem P shall be handled by the System XYZ
a specifict data-class shall be supported in the System XYZ
the communication to the customer shall be done by the organization Z.
it is possible to change a specific value in an order
the system XYZ shall be able to evaluate if a customer is able to pay monthly rates
in addition, many rules i got explain certain things that need to be fulfilled in order to let a future system work correctly. In my eyes, these rules are technical requirements. So, what would be the best choice? Hard-coding these Business Rules in Business Processes (it just sounds so wrong) or embedding a Business Rule Management System (with a Rules Engine) next to a Business Process Management?
My guess is that a Rule Engine is not the best choice for this. There are sometimes more than one possibilities and scenarios written down in each Business Rule and the common "if-then" statement does not apply in the most cases.
So i found out that in most cases there is this "if-then" statement (literature etc.), but then the SBVR from the OMG comes in (Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules). It confuses me because there it isn't required to formulate rules with "if-then" et cetera.
I assume that these rules are not specifically meant to be built in a rules engine, but rather kept an eye on during the implementation of the software and after this process. Yet i think that these Business Rules might change. Wouldn't it be naive to hard-code them in Business Processes?
If there's anyone with a hint, i'd be very thankful.
BR
Yeah, you just need to choose the right tool for the job. You should take a look at the Drools and JBPM projects. Where the main goal is to make the rule engine to coexist with the process engine. So for some of those "Rules" you can create a business process to take care of it and for another one you can just write a proper business rule. And the third option is to mix both worlds.
Related
I have recently been tasked to look into Workflow Foundation. The actual goal would be to implement a system in which the end users can define custom workflows in the deployed application (and of course, use them). Personally I have never used WF before (and reading around here on SO people are very doubtful about it - so am I reading those questions/answers), and I am having a hard time finding my way around it given the sparse learning resources available.
Anyway, there are some questions, for example, this, which mention something they call dynamic or user-defined workflows. They point out that WF makes it possible to "rehost" the designer, so that end-users can define their own new workflows after the application is deployed (without developer intervention (?), this is the part I am not really sure about).
I have been told by fellow employees that this way we could implement an application in which once this feature is implemented we would no longer have to keep modifying the application every time a new workflow is to be implemented. However, they also pointed out that they just "heard it", they don't have firsthand experience themselves either.
I have been looking around for samples online but the best thing I could find was a number guess app - barely more than a simple hello world. So not much that would point me to the right direction of how this user-defined workflow feature actually works and how it can be used, what its limitations are etc.
My primary concern is this: it is alright that one can define custom workflows but no workflow is worth a penny without the possibility of actually inputting data throughout the process. For example, even if the only thing I need to do is to register a customer in a complaint management system, I would need the customer's name, contact, etc. If the end user should be able to define any workflow the given toolset makes possible then of course there needs to be a way to provide the workflow consumers with a way of inputting data through forms. If the workflow can be of pretty much any nature then so needs to be the data - otherwise if we need to implement the UIs ourselves then this "end-user throws together a workflow" feature is kind of useless because they would still end up at us requiring to implement a form or some sort of data input for the individual steps.
So I guess that there should be a way of defining the "shape" of the data that needs to be filled at any given user interaction phase of the workflow which I can investigate and dynamically generate forms based on the data. So for example, if I found that the required data was made up of a name and a date of birth, then I would need to render a textbox and a datepicker on the page.
What I couldn't really figure out from the Q&As here and elsewhere is whether this is even possible. Can I define and then later "query" the structure of the data to be passed to the workflow at any point? If so, how? If not, how should this user-defined workflow feature even be used, what is it good for?
To clarify it a little, I could imagine something as specifying a complex type, which would be the view model (input model) in a regular MVC app, and then I could reflect over it, get the properties and render input fields based on that.
Windows Workflow Foundation is about machine workflows, not business workflows. True, it is the foundational tool set Microsoft created for building their business workflow products. But out of the box WWF does not have the components you need to quickly and easily build business workflows. If you want to send an email in a workflow, you have to write that from scratch. Just about anything you can think of doing from a business point of view you have to write from scratch.
If you want to easily create business workflows using Microsoft products check out the workflow stuff in SharePoint. It is the easiest of the Microsoft products to work with (in my experience.) If that does not meet your needs there are other products like BizTalk.
K2 is another company with a business workflow product that uses WWF as their base to more easily build business workflows, the older K2 products actually create web pages automatically to collect the data from the user.
WWF is very low level, arguably it lost traction after they re-wrote the whole thing in 4.0. While not publically stated by Microsoft, my personal opinion is Service Fabric (from Microsoft) achieves the goals WWF originally tried to solve which was a "more robust programming environment."
I would like to model an application architecture and the time-outs between all the application (e.g. between application A and B there is a time-out of 10 seconds and that between all applications). Which modelling language should I best use for this that it is clear? I don't think UML diagrams will do the trick...
Thanks.
It depends on the purpose of your model.
Business oriented process orchestration
For orchestration between several tasks/activities of several applications of a complex process, you could use Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), which is a standard of the OMG.
There you can model event-based "gateways" to control flow of control or "messages" between activities. An event could be in your case a timer or a error (e.g. time-out errors) depending on the desired emphasis.
Remark: THere are several third party tools that use BPMN models to generate BPEL in order to to make the modelled process orchestration exectutable.
Technical model
If you want to show interaction between applications, but not necessarily modelled as business processes (user perspective), you could also really consider UML:
activity diagrams can present event actions and also timers
eventually, sequence diagrams could present timing constraints and conditions. But intuitively I doubt it's the best choice for your question here.
Christophe's answer is correct. However, you can show time out with basic activity diagrams by using interruptible regions and an interrupt flow like this:
Of course BPMN can do that much better.
Did not find a more suitable SE site, so asking this here.
In BPM, there are more-or-less standard ways of marking activities - like Start (green circle), Stop (red circle), Conditional (yellow diamond). An example I found is here.
Conditional is basically an 'if' in any programming language.
What I could not find any example of is a 'switch'.
I know that one could use multiple Conditionals, but I have to implement a user friendly way, so I'd like to know if there is any standard way of representing such a thing in BPM.
It depends on what you mean by "switch". If you want to switch process flow in one or another way you can use Complex Gateway. A Complex Gateway allows the modeler to specify any arbitrary rules needed to determine how to emit tokens or process arriving tokens.
BPMN Complex Gateways can be used for splitting or merging a complicated process flow scenario. However, it is not recommended practice as there are simpler and more practical inclusive and exclusive gateways. There is always better to use their combination. You can learn more about complex gateways here.
I watched some videos, read some blogs about it. SO has many questions and answers on that subject but I can not find anywhere exact answer for my question.
Almost every question and answer has a lack of usage context.
I have one middle sized, asp.net-mvc, monolith application which is running in one process on IIS. I want to (refactor and) go all the way with DDD (and CQRS without separated storage for reads and writes for now) but for me it looks like impossible mission without breaking some rules/guides/etc.
Bounded Context
For example I have more than one BCs. Each should not cross their boundaries which means should not share their storage. Right?
It is not possible if you use the whole known (everywhere scattered over the web) solution to work with NHibernate session and UoW.
Aggregate Root
Only one AR should be modified in one transaction. When others ARs are involved should introduce eventual consistency (if I remember those are Eric Evans words).
I try to do it but it is not easy in app like that. Pub/Sub not working as desired because if event is published then all subscribers are take their action within one transaction (NSB/MT does that way).
If event handlers wants to modify others ARs they should be executed in separated transactions, right?
Is it possible to deal with it in monolith application (application where whole code works in one process)?
It is not possible if you use the whole known (everywhere scattered
over the web) solution
[...]
if event is published then all subscribers are take their action
within one transaction
I think you're setting yourself useless and harmful constraints by trying to stick to some "state of the art".
Migrating an entire application to DDD + CQRS is a massive undertaking. Some areas of it don't have well-documented beaten paths yet and you'll probably have a fair bit of exploration to do. My best advice would be to stay at a reasonable distance from "the way people do things". Both in traditional ASP.Net web apps because mainstream practices often don't match the way DDD+CQRS works, and in CQRS itself because the case studies out there are few and far between and most probably very domain specific, with a tendency to advocate the use of heavy tools which may not make sense in your context.
You may need to think out of the box, adopt things incrementally and refrain from goldplating everything. You'll be better off starting with very simple implementations that suit your needs exactly than throwing a ton of tools and frameworks at your codebase.
For instance, do you really need a service bus or could a simple Observer pattern suffice ?
Regarding NHibernate, most implementations out there use a (single) Session Per Request approach, but just because it's the most popular doesn't mean it's the only one. Have you tried using multiple ISessions (one for each BC) available at a more programmable level, such as per-action, or managed entirely manually ? Conversely, have you considered sharing a database between Bounded Contexts at first and see for yourself if that's bad or not ?
What's the point of using Fit/FitNesse instead of xUnit-style integration tests? It has really strange and very unclear syntax in my opinion.
Is it really only to make product owners write tests? They won't! It's too complicated for them. So why should anyone Fit/FitNesse?
Update So it's totally suitable for business-rules tests only?
The whole point is to work with non-programmers, often even completely non-technical people like prospect users of a business application, on what application should do and then put it into tests. While making tests work is certainly too complicated for them, they should be able to discuss tables of sample data filled out in e.g. Word. And the great thing is, unlike traditional specification, those documents live with your application because automated tests force you to update them.
See Introduction To Fit and Fit Workflow by James Shore and follow links to the rest of documentation if you want.
Update: Depends on what you mean by business rules? ;-) Some people would understand it very narrowly (like in business rules engines etc), others---very broadly.
As I see it, Fit is a tool that allows you to write down business (as in domain) use cases with rich realistic examples in a document, which the end users or domain experts (in some domains) can understand, verify and discuss. At the same time these examples are in machine readable form so they can be used to drive automated testing, You neither write the document entirely by yourself, nor requre them to do it. Instead it's a product of callaboration and discussion that reflects growing understanding of what application is going to do, on both sides. Examples get richer as you progress and more corner cases are resolved.
What application will do, not how, is important. It's a form of functional spec. As such it's rather broad and not really organized by modules but rather usage scenarios.
The tests that come out of examples will test external behavior of application in aspects important from business point of view. Yes, you might call it business rules. But lets look at Diego Jancic's example of credit scoring, just with a little twist. What if part of fit document is 1) listing attributes and their scores and then 2) providing client data and checking results, Then which are the actual business rules: scoring table (attributes and their scores) or application logic computing the score for each client (based on scoring table)? And which are tested?
Fit/FitNesse tests seem more suitable for acceptance testing. Other tests (when you don't care about cooperation with clients, users, domain experts, etc., you just want to automate testing) probably will be easier to write and maintain in more traditional ways. xUnit is nice for unit testing and api tests. Each web framework should have some tool for web app/service testing integrated in its modify-build-test-deploy cycle, eg. django has its little test client. You've lots to chose from.
And you always can write your own tool (or preferably tweak some existing) to better fit (pun intended) some testing in your particular domain of interest.
One more general thought. It's often (not always!!!) better to encode your tests, "business rules" and just about anything, in some form of well defined data that is interpreted by some simple, generic piece of code. Then it's easy to use the data in some other way: generate documentation, migrate to new testing framework, port application to new environment/programming language, use to check conformance with some external rules or other system (just use your imagination). It's much harder to pull such information out from code, eg. simple hardcoded unit tests or business rules.
Fit stores test cases as data. In very specific format because of how it's intended to be used, but still. Your domain specific tests may use different formats like simple CSV, JSON or YAML.
The idea is that you (the programmer) defines an easy to understand format, such as an excel sheet. Then, the product owner enters information that is hard to understand for people that is not in the business... and you just validate that your code works as the PO expects running Fit.
The way used in xUnit, can be used for programmers as an input for easy to understand or simple information.
If you're going to need to enter a lot of weird examples with multiple fields in your xUnit test, it will became hard to read.
Imagine a case where you have to decide whether to give a loan to a customer, based on the Age, Married/Single, Amount of Childrens, Wage, Activity, ...
As a programmer, you cannot write that information; and a risk manager cannot write a xUnit test.
Helps reduce redundancy in regression and bug testing. Build manageable repository of test cases. Its like build once and use for ever.
It is very useful during cooperation of the QA and devs teams: QA could show to developer the result of the failed test and a developer will easyly help to solve an environment issue and will understand steps for reproducing a bug.
It is suitable for UI and even for API testing.