Discussion

Need an Undeclared Expression rule

I'm trying to remember if I've requested this earlier...

There's something missing in the PRPC decision/declarative ruletypes.
Many of the business logic rules are "undeclared" -- they return a value to whatever called it.

Expressions are the basic building blocks -- but they are all declarative. We need undeclared expressions.

This would be helpful because there are *so many* places I find in Pega frameworks and are code where expressions are built in Proeprty-Set's or Java steps and thus aren't very modular.

Jon

**Moderation Team has archived post**

This post has been archived for educational purposes. Contents and links will no longer be updated. If you have the same/similar question, please write a new post.

Comments

Keep up to date on this post and subscribe to comments

Pega
November 2, 2009 - 10:56am

Wouldn't that be an activity or RUF?

R. Norin -- Pega

November 2, 2009 - 11:03am

re: Wouldn't that be an activity or RUF?

I need a "business-friendly" rule.
Activities are not clearly drawn as expressions or when rules are. The inputs to Property-Set are collapsed, after all.

And RUF (Rule-Utility-Function) are problematic because they cannot be overridden -- this is the prime directive in business rules, after all.

Jon

July 8, 2011 - 2:59pm

I've been asking for this feature for some 16 months now, at least.
Does anyone know whether this is coming in v6.2?

quote:


Originally posted by JONGARFUNKEL

*bump* -- is this planned for v6.1?
This would be very useful in many contexts.

Jon

quote:


Originally posted by JonGarfunkel

re: Wouldn't that be an activity or RUF?

I need a "business-friendly" rule.
Activities are not clearly drawn as expressions or when rules are. The inputs to Property-Set are collapsed, after all.

And RUF (Rule-Utility-Function) are problematic because they cannot be overridden -- this is the prime directive in business rules, after all.

Jon



February 2, 2010 - 6:31pm

*bump* -- is this planned for v6.1?
This would be very useful in many contexts.

Jon

quote:


Originally posted by JonGarfunkel

re: Wouldn't that be an activity or RUF?

I need a "business-friendly" rule.
Activities are not clearly drawn as expressions or when rules are. The inputs to Property-Set are collapsed, after all.

And RUF (Rule-Utility-Function) are problematic because they cannot be overridden -- this is the prime directive in business rules, after all.

Jon


December 9, 2011 - 3:42pm

It's now 25 months since I've asked for this feature (perhaps longer). I don't see it in v6.2.

I had needed it in the project from 2 years back, and it still might be useful today.

Alias Functions don't precisely meet the niche since they're not "business-friendly" as a R-D-Expressions form is.

quote:


Originally posted by JONGARFUNKEL

I've been asking for this feature for some 16 months now, at least.
Does anyone know whether this is coming in v6.2?

quote:


Originally posted by JONGARFUNKEL

*bump* -- is this planned for v6.1?
This would be very useful in many contexts.

Jon

quote:


Originally posted by JonGarfunkel

re: Wouldn't that be an activity or RUF?

I need a "business-friendly" rule.
Activities are not clearly drawn as expressions or when rules are. The inputs to Property-Set are collapsed, after all.

And RUF (Rule-Utility-Function) are problematic because they cannot be overridden -- this is the prime directive in business rules, after all.

Jon




January 16, 2014 - 12:18pm

Four years later... I don't see this in v7. Harumph.

May 21, 2014 - 2:28pm

I suppose we could use a transform rule (which was still called Model when NORIR proposed using an activity back in 2009).

But I still think it's useful -- suppose that we wanted to specify the syntax of a tablename (presuming that we could). It's a question where we would use a procedural transform rule (binding it to a target property), or an undeclared expression.

August 8, 2016 - 12:01pm

Taking a look at this again -- does v7.2 have undeclared expression rules?