Breaking the Rules 2: to OR or not to OR

Breaking the Rules 2: to OR or not to OR

by | Feb 20, 2012 | Series - Breaking the Rules

This is the second article (see the first here) of an occasional series, “Breaking the Rules”, in which we look at the sacred rules governing business rule design and examine some exceptional circumstances under which they can and should be broken. In this article we investigate the prohibition on the Boolean ‘OR’ operator in rule conditions.

It is a widely known rule of thumb that business rules should be atomic and that they should eschew the use of the Boolean OR operator between conditions. Only rules with single conditions, or multiple conditions that are ANDed together are recommended. In this article we consider the case for this prohibition, before explaining why, in some cases, an OR is not only acceptable, but advised… (more…)

Breaking the Rules 2: to OR or not to OR

Breaking the Rules 1: Rules With More Than One Conclusion

by | Oct 12, 2011 | Series - Breaking the Rules

This is the first of an occasional series, “Breaking the Rules”, in which we look at the sacred rules governing business rule design and examine some exceptional circumstances under which they can, and should, be broken. In this article we investigate the prohibition of multiple actions (or, more correctly, conclusions) in definitional rules. Should your rules only have one action as some authorities suggest? Or are there occasions when more than one action is allowed?

(more…)