Well....I'm not sure I can answer the architectural 'why'.....but hopefully this will do.
Filter Phasing is designed to allow everything on 'this' form to be done before doing anything on 'that' form (Phase1/2) and to ensure all of your phase 1 and 2 are done before you do things like Notify, Delete, Run Process (Phase 3).....this phasing ensures that if you send a notification out on action X....if a push doesn't succeed for whatever reason, then the notification doesn't happen because it happens after she pushes......well...AL's are Client side....anything they do that interacts with the server, ALL of it happens before the next action...so there kinda is phasing....you could think of the Client as Phase 0.....but due to the fact that the client needs to wait till the server is done with any given api call before it can go on it causes you to not be able to 'wait' like filters do within itself. -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vikram Reddy Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Why dont ActiveLinks has phases similar to that of Filter phasing in Filters? ----- With Regards, B.Vikram Simha Reddy. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Why-dont-ActiveLinks-has-phases-similar-to-that-of-Fil ter-phasing-in-Filters--tp28024734p28024734.html Sent from the ARS (Action Request System) mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
