Composing Multi-Party Workflows in Daml

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.canton.network/llms.txt Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

Composing Multi-Party Workflows in Daml

Advanced Daml patterns for propose-accept, delegation, authorization chains, and atomic multi-party composition

Real-world Daml applications involve multiple parties with different roles, permissions, and trust relationships. This deep dive covers the Daml design patterns that make complex multi-party workflows work — from simple two-party agreements to multi-step authorization chains spanning several organizations.

The Propose-Accept Pattern

For the canonical walkthrough of propose-accept, see Module 2: Multi-Party Workflows. This deep dive focuses on the additional composition patterns that build on that foundation.

Delegation

Delegation lets one party grant another party the authority to act on their behalf within a defined scope. Unlike the propose-accept pattern (which creates a shared agreement), delegation creates a one-directional trust relationship.

template OperatorLicense
  with
    owner : Party
    operator : Party
    allowedOperations : [Text]
  where
    signatory owner
    observer operator

    choice Operate : ContractId OperationResult
      with
        operation : Text
      controller operator
      do assertMsg "Operation not allowed"
           (operation `elem` allowedOperations)
         create OperationResult with
           performer = operator
           onBehalfOf = owner
           operation

The owner grants specific operations to the operator. The operator can exercise the Operate choice, but only for allowed operations. The owner can revoke the delegation by archiving the OperatorLicense.

Multi-Step Workflows

Many business processes require a sequence of actions by different parties. Model these as a chain of contracts, where each step’s output becomes the next step’s input:

template TradeRequest
  with
    buyer : Party
    seller : Party
    asset : Text
    price : Decimal
  where
    signatory buyer
    observer seller

    choice ConfirmTrade : ContractId TradeSettlement
      controller seller
      do create TradeSettlement with
           buyer
           seller
           asset
           price

template TradeSettlement
  with
    buyer : Party
    seller : Party
    asset : Text
    price : Decimal
  where
    signatory buyer, seller

    choice Settle : ()
      controller seller
      do pure ()

Each step in the workflow is a separate template. This makes the workflow state visible and auditable — you can query the ledger to see which step any given trade is at.

Atomic Composition

Daml transactions are atomic: either all the creates and archives in a transaction succeed, or none of them do. Use this property to implement complex operations that must happen together:

choice SwapAssets : (ContractId Asset, ContractId Asset)
  controller partyA
  do -- Both transfers happen atomically
     newAssetForB <- exercise assetFromA Transfer with newOwner = partyB
     newAssetForA <- exercise assetFromB Transfer with newOwner = partyA
     pure (newAssetForA, newAssetForB)

If either transfer fails (wrong controller, contract already archived, assertion failure), neither happens. This is the foundation of delivery-versus-payment (DvP) and other settlement patterns.

Authorization Through Interfaces

Interfaces define abstract capabilities that templates can implement. Use them to create composable authorization patterns:

interface Transferable where
  viewtype TransferView
  getOwner : Party
  transfer : Party -> Update (ContractId Transferable)

  choice TransferTo : ContractId Transferable
    with newOwner : Party
    controller getOwner this
    do transfer this newOwner

Any template that implements Transferable gets the TransferTo choice. Your backend can work with the interface without knowing the specific template type, enabling generic transfer logic across different asset types.

Multi-Party Visibility Patterns

Canton’s privacy model means each party sees only the contracts where they are a stakeholder (signatory or observer). For workflows that need broader visibility without giving parties the ability to act, use the observer pattern:

template AuditableTransaction
  with
    executor : Party
    counterparty : Party
    auditor : Party
    details : Text
  where
    signatory executor, counterparty
    observer auditor  -- auditor can see but not act

For regulatory or compliance scenarios where a third party needs visibility into transactions without being a participant, add them as observers. They can read the contract data through the Ledger API but cannot exercise choices on it.

Design Considerations

When composing multi-party workflows:

• Keep the signatory set minimal — each additional signatory adds coordination overhead
• Use observers for read-only access rather than making parties signatories
• Design templates so that each party’s choices are clear from the template declaration
• Avoid deep transaction trees (many nested exercises) as they increase transaction size and latency
• Consider whether a workflow step needs to be on-ledger or can happen off-ledger

Next Steps

• Decentralization — Strategies for decentralizing at each layer
• Multi-Hosting — Distributing parties across validators for resilience

Mirrored from Canton Network official documentation (CC-BY-4.0) by CC Privacy Club for learning purposes.