<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>State Machines on Nalar</title>
    <link>https://nalar.dev/tags/state-machines/</link>
    <description>Recent content in State Machines on Nalar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0700</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://nalar.dev/tags/state-machines/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Modeling Workflows with Explicit State Transitions</title>
      <link>https://nalar.dev/modeling-workflows-with-explicit-state-transitions/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0700</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nalar.dev/modeling-workflows-with-explicit-state-transitions/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Many business objects have a lifecycle. An order may be created, approved, fulfilled, or cancelled. A support ticket may be open, assigned, resolved, or reopened. Problems begin when those lifecycle rules are represented only by a status field and scattered &lt;code&gt;if&lt;/code&gt; statements.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;As the system grows, different code paths can start disagreeing about which changes are legal. One handler allows a cancelled order to be approved, another silently ignores the request, and a third checks a different set of statuses. The status values are visible, but the rules connecting them are not.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
