Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Appian Exam ACD301 Topic 2 Question 4 Discussion

Actual exam question for Appian's ACD301 exam
Question #: 4
Topic #: 2
[All ACD301 Questions]

You are asked to design a case management system for a client. In addition to storing some basic metadata about a case, one of the client's requirements is the ability for users to update a case. The client would like any user in their organization of 500 people to be able to make these updates. The users are all based in the company's headquarters, and there will be frequent cases where users are attempting to edit the same case. The client wants to ensure no information is lost when these edits occur and does not want the solution to burden their process administrators with any additional effort. Which data locking approach should you recommend?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

The requirement involves a case management system where 500 users may simultaneously edit the same case, with a need to prevent data loss and minimize administrative overhead. Appian's data management and concurrency control strategies are critical here, especially when integrating with an underlying database.

Option C (Add an @Version annotation to the case CDT to manage the locking):

This is the recommended approach. In Appian, the @Version annotation on a Custom Data Type (CDT) enables optimistic locking, a lightweight concurrency control mechanism. When a user updates a case, Appian checks the version number of the CDT instance. If another user has modified it in the meantime, the update fails, prompting the user to refresh and reapply changes. This prevents data loss without requiring manual intervention by process administrators. Appian's Data Design Guide recommends @Version for scenarios with high concurrency (e.g., 500 users) and frequent edits, as it leverages the database's native versioning (e.g., in MySQL or PostgreSQL) and integrates seamlessly with Appian's process models. This aligns with the client's no-burden requirement.

Option A (Allow edits without locking the case CDI):

This is risky. Without locking, simultaneous edits could overwrite each other, leading to data loss---a direct violation of the client's requirement. Appian does not recommend this for collaborative environments.

Option B (Use the database to implement low-level pessimistic locking):

Pessimistic locking (e.g., using SELECT ... FOR UPDATE in MySQL) locks the record during the edit process, preventing other users from modifying it until the lock is released. While effective, it can lead to deadlocks or performance bottlenecks with 500 users, especially if edits are frequent. Additionally, managing this at the database level requires custom SQL and increases administrative effort (e.g., monitoring locks), which the client wants to avoid. Appian prefers higher-level solutions like @Version over low-level database locking.

Option D (Design a process report and query to determine who opened the edit form first):

This is impractical and inefficient. Building a custom report and query to track form opens adds complexity and administrative overhead. It doesn't inherently prevent data loss and relies on manual resolution, conflicting with the client's requirements.

The @Version annotation provides a robust, Appian-native solution that balances concurrency, data integrity, and ease of maintenance, making it the best fit.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Jessenia
19 hours ago
Option B is the way to go. Pessimistic locking may sound like a buzzkill, but it's the only way to ensure data integrity when you've got a whole army of case-editing maniacs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margery
4 days ago
Option A is a disaster waiting to happen. Letting 500 people edit the same case at the same time? The client might as well just put the data in a blender.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felicitas
5 days ago
Option D? Really? That's just asking for trouble. 'Who opened the edit form first?' What is this, the Hunger Games?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ronald
18 days ago
I prefer adding an @Version annotation to the case CDT to manage the locking, it seems like a more efficient solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ruthann
20 days ago
I agree with Taryn, it's important to prevent data loss when multiple users are editing the same case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ashley
25 days ago
I'd go with Option C. The @Version annotation is a simple way to handle concurrency control without getting too low-level.
upvoted 0 times
Helene
5 days ago
I agree, using the @Version annotation seems like the most efficient way to handle data locking in this case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Orville
10 days ago
Option C sounds like a good choice. It's simple and effective.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Fletcher
1 months ago
Option B makes the most sense. Locking at the database level ensures no data is lost, and the client doesn't want additional effort for their process administrators.
upvoted 0 times
Providencia
4 days ago
B) Use the database to implement low-level pessimistic locking.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denae
11 days ago
C) Add an @Version annotation to the case CDT to manage the locking.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aja
18 days ago
B) Use the database to implement low-level pessimistic locking.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Taryn
1 months ago
I think we should use the database to implement low-level pessimistic locking.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel