I am evaluating n8n for enterprise financial application and I have a few concerns about whether n8n is up to the task for a production system. Does it maintain workflow state? I saw about passing state from one workflow to the other. I would like to know how you compare n8n to Camunda for example which uses BPMN notation for the design and can execute off of that a multi-phase workflow.
Welcome to the community @Steven!
No each workflow runs by itself totally independent of earlier ones. If you have to maintain state then you have to save the data manually somewhere else like for example a database.
Honestly do not know Camunda well enough to give you some insightful answer here. There are simply way to many tools out there that somehow adjacent to what n8n does.
Ok, is workflow independence something you see as an advantage? Our workflow has multiple phases or or sub flows. Is state for a single workflow maintained? And do you intend to add more state management in the future?
I see it maybe not as an “advantage” but it was not a “disadvantage” as most use-cases people use n8n for did not require it. Can for sure be both depending on the exact use-case.
Not sure what you mean exactly with “Is state for a single workflow maintained?” as it sounds like the question that got already answered. But how n8n operates is that it receives data (or not, depending on the trigger), starts a workflow execution and that data of that workflow gets then saved after the execution depending on the settings. The next workflow execution starts then again without knowing anything about previous executions. Unless some data got manually saved by previous executions somewhere (like a DB) and then ready again on the current execution from it.
If you use sub-workflows a then you can send data into that sub-workflows and receive it back from them, all in the same execution without losing the context/data.
Hope that helps!