[rules-users] Moving from Jrules to Drools a couple of Issues

[Mark Proctor]

On 26/05/2010 09:56, paulnnosh wrote:
> Hi Chaps,
>
> We currently use Jrules 5 and are looking at our options going forward. We
> are going to evaluate Drools alongside some other products. So far I like
> the look of Drools but there are a couple of things that are puzzling me...
>
> - In our Jrules implementation our BOM/XOM exposes some of our application
> logic so that our rules can access application code and services to make
> decisions and updates where necessary. I can't see how this is possible in
> Drools.
>    
Pojos just work out of the box, it's much simpler :) So any inserted 
object is a pojo and is a direct reference to the object the user 
inserted. Use globals (also simple pojos) for registering and accessing 
services.
> - Our ruleflows use decision tables to define which rules will run dependant
> upon the transaction type received. This makes assigning a rule to a single
> ruleflow group inappropriate as one rule could be used by many different
> transactions. Is it possible to create an ArrayList of rules and execute
> them one at a time via ruleflow action node?
>    
JRules ruleflow and Drools ruleflow are very different. In JRules each 
ruleflow group is a separate knowledge base and executes statelessly. 
Where as RuleFlow in drools is for a single knowledge base and stateful 
sessions.

You can simulate the more traditional ilog way by using Drools Flow, and 
create a "work item" to execute some input vars against a stateless 
session. This way each branch can have it's own knowledge base and copy 
of relevant rules.

Mark
> Many Thanks
>
>
>
>