Sequential workflows declare a series of steps that are executed in a prescribed order. Within the workflow, the flow of control is defined with familiar constructs such as if-else branching and while loops.
State Machine Workflows
State machine workflows don’t define a fixed sequence of steps. Instead, they define a set of states, with possible transitions between each state. Each state may contain one or more steps that are executed during state transitions.
How to choose
Both workflow types are suitable for use in a wide variety of applications. You can even use both types within the same application. However, each workflow type targets a different kind of problem. The deciding factor when choosing the workflow type usually comes down to control.
A sequential workflow defines the flow of control within the workflow. Since it specifies the exact sequence of steps within the workflow, it is in control. It works best for system interaction problems where the prescribed steps are known at design time.
State machine workflows don’t define a fixed flow of control within the workflow. The exact sequence of state transitions is controlled by external events. For this reason, state machine workflows are well-suited to problems that involve human interaction. Humans don’t always do things in a prescribed sequence. Modeling a problem involving human interaction requires flexibility, and a state machine workflow provides this.
In most situations, you can make either type of workflow work. However, choosing the wrong workflow type for the problem may result in a more complicated, inelegant solution. You need to choose the workflow type that feels like a natural fit to the problem. For the account withdrawal example, which workflow type is best? You could implement a working application using either type. This doesn’t mean that both workflow types are equally suited to solving the problem.