[rules-users] Inferencing

[Tim de Jager]

Hi everybody,

I'm currently doing my bachelor thesis on Rule engines. This includes
comapring different Rule engine products. I have set up a small Java program
(Conway's game of life) and I'm writing the 'engine' in different Rule
engines, while keeping the same GUI,CellGrid etc. I have already made a
Drools based engine.

I have been studying the Rule engine subject for somewhat more then a month
now. And I'm currently seeing two different developments namely the use of
an inference engine and the generation of embedded code instead (Take,
Visual Rules etc.)  I can see some of the pro's and cons with both
paradigms. But I'm wondering what opinion some of you guys have on the
subject.

I can see that without inferencing  it is very hard (or even impossible) to
keep a statefull session inside the rule engine, haven't seen a
non-inferencing rule engine which does offer this possibility. And also lose
features like TMS. But what would be a concrete example where a statefull
session is absolutely necessary? Instead of letting the engine reason over
all the facts in stateless way. And managing conflicts with a ruleflow (see
Visual Rules for a nice example).

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Thanks,

Tim

P.S I already read two of Mark Proctors blogs on inferencing, but while
enlightening, they didn't supply me with a definitive awnser
-- 
View this message in context: http://n3.nabble.com/Inferencing-tp435411p435411.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.