Rule Machine and Rule Machine Legacy

[Krishna]

What is the difference between these two Apps? Which is the better one to use. I now have four different Apps for making rules and it's getting kind of cumbersome... wish I could have them all in one place.

[terminal3]

New App Features in 2.2.8

Release 2.2.8 introduces a number of new features, new apps, and new app features. These include Hub Variables, a new version of Rule Machine, Rule 5.0, Button Controller 5.0, and Button Rule 5.0. Hub Variables We have added Hub Variables as a Setting for the hub. Hub Variables are quite similar to Global Variables in Rule Machine, but implemented in the hub rather than in the RM parent app. This provides for the use of Hub Variables in other apps, not just in RM. Hub Variables are very eff…

[bravenel]

@Krishna

wish I could have them all in one place.

Our platform continues to evolve and improve. This means that sometimes, in order to support new and better features, it is necessary to bring out new versions of built-in apps. The reason for this is that certain changes cannot be made to an existing app without creating problems of backwards compatibility. What is now Rule Machine Legacy served its role for four years. But moving forward required a new version, now called Rule Machine.

All of your older rules that you can see under Rule Machine Legacy still work, and will go on working for you. This is the original functionality that we strive to protect and to continue to support as Rule Machine continues to evolve. New rules will be created under Rule Machine, and will benefit from the new features. This is our way to preserve what you have while moving forward at the same time.

We feel it is better to move the platform forward than to keep the rules 'all in one place'.

[david4]

I understand the evolution. Just wish the app naming convention would maintain some form of continuity over time to enable immediately meaningful problem research. For instance, RM1, RM2, RM3.

[bravenel]

@david4

Just wish the app naming convention would maintain some form of continuity over time to enable immediately meaningful problem research.

Things change over time.

The naming convention has remained constant. The progression has been this: Rule, Rule-2.5, Rule-3.0, Rule-4.0, Rule-4.1, Rule-5.0, Rule-5.1. The ones called Rule through Rule-4.1 are now under Rule Machine Legacy. Rule-5.x is under Rule Machine. There shouldn't be two apps named Rule Machine. I'm missing what research problem is thwarted by this.

[david4]

Thanks Bruce.

You just explained the problem. Prior knowledge of the progression is required when searching this forum for articles about search term 'Rule Machine.' And, user knowledge/currency will always be variable.

For instance, my system is fairly stable and I only make small periodic changes lately. When I notice an operational issue, I dive back in and figure it out. And, thus far, I have seen no need for the new new RM app so I don't use it and have no reason to know about it. I'm thinking like a librarian. (Normally), the names of published books don't change. But, in the event that a newer book is published with the same name, a new piece of data (the publishing date) is required to find the older book.

My point is, the complexity of knowing two pieces of data to search this forum (and maybe get confused) could have been avoided by using a sequential numbering scheme that prima facia completely describes the app. And now, when anyone searches on 'Rule Machine', the may/will wonder if this article applies to their version. (You didn't go back in the forum and change all the old references to 'Rule Machine to 'Rule Machine Legacy' did you?)

This is not a big deal to me but it seems obvious and you asked.

[clemsongt]

Is there any way to import a rule from legacy to 5.1? I have quite a few rules and it will take a long time to convert them all over and I have no interest in doing so...

[672southmain]

Sorry, no. And, you don’t have to convert old rules. They will continue to work as they always have.

[clemsongt]

True, they will, but that means I have two separate rule apps. And, because I can't create new legacy rules, I have to convert things over if I want to write any new rules that are dependent on any of my legacy rules.

[aaiyar]

@bravenel

There shouldn't be two apps named Rule Machine.

For whatever reason, there are two “Rule Machine Legacy” apps on my C-5.

But only one on my C-7.

Hasn’t hurt anything or caused any issues that I’m aware of.

[neonturbo]

@clemsongt

And, because I can't create new legacy rules

You can clone an existing rule, change/delete everything in the clone, and use that clone for a new rule if you really desire to keep old RM for some odd reason.

[ritchierich]

@aaiyar

there are two “Rule Machine Legacy” apps on my C-5.

I just checked my C5 and I only have one. My C7s also only have one.

[aaiyar]

@ritchierich

I just checked my C5 and I only have one.

For S&G, I checked if I could install both, and I could. Both are the same version too. Weird.

[benasaur]

Thanks for this tip.

My situation is that one rule from a Legacy RM (4.0) would crash upon trying to load it to modify. Although it ran, it could not be edited, and I can't even load it up to see what was the matter. I replicated the functionality in a new RM 5.0 rule, but all the other Legacy RM 4.x rules couldn't run the new rule. I used the suggestion here, cloned a rule, and rewrote it and now everything works fine again.

I would suggest that at some point in the future we could be given the option of automatic migration to the new RM as I'm not looking forward to the Herculean task of replacing all the rules when something else unexpected happens again.