[rules-users] Declarative fact model or Java?

[GPatel at tsys.com]

If you are starting from scratch, this is possible. However, I find myself 
having to expose operations from the *preexisting* technical domain into 
the business (i.e expose methods from existing technical domain code that 
has all kinds of annotations and code references to 3rd party software). 
The only way out, in that case, is to have your own separate business 
domain classes that wrap around (proxy) the existing technical domain



From:   Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun at gmail.com>
To:     Rules Users List <rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
Date:   01/20/2012 06:36 AM
Subject:        Re: [rules-users] Declarative fact model or Java?
Sent by:        rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org



Let me mention that I've used Java classes derived from XML Schema
as facts.

If there are technical properties you'd like to hide from the rule 
programmer,
define a "business" type and extend it with the technical properties. The
rule programmer must make do with the "business" type, which is
possible even if the object (fact) type is the "technical" subclass.

-W


On 20/01/2012, Stephen Masters <stephen.masters at me.com> wrote:
> Hi Davide,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. The application is just a service which takes 
an
> XML request, converts that into a fact and inserts that into the working
> memory. Based on rule evaluations, it responds to the client with more 
XML
> indicating whether the requested action is permitted.
>
> On of the key aims of the project is to enable management of some rules 
by
> 'the business' through Guvnor. The current 1-1 mapping you mention is 
partly
> what put me off using Java models, as it leads to 'technical' attributes
> being present in the Guvnor fact model, which are not relevant to the
> business. The more I can keep the fact model within Guvnor minimal, the
> better.
>
> So following your logic, given that:
> There is no legacy model to deal with.
> ~80% of what is going on will be within Drools, with the Java code just 
to
> insert/update facts and marshal XML.
> I would really like to avoid a 1-1 mapping of Java classes to DRL facts.
> ... I think I'll stick with DRL facts.
>
> Given that I'm not too sure exactly what I want out of it yet, I'm not 
sure
> how much I could contribute to a spec, but I'd be happy to help out with
> things. If only by testing out early code and providing feedback. If 
there's
> anything you think I might be able to help out with, feel free to ping 
me an
> email.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Steve
> stephen.masters at me.com
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Davide Sottara <dsotty at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
> let me share my thoughts on this.
>
> You will probably want to use a Java model when it's already available 
:) Or
> when you're using the rule engine to implement the business logic layer 
of
> your application, processing data coming from an external source.
>
> A DRL model, instead, is definitely recommended for "temporary" facts, 
or
> data structures which are used by the rules to do their computations.
> The main problem with DRL fact classes is that they're quite cumbersome 
to
> use outside the rule engine. On the other hand, you will be sure that 
the
> declared types will correspond to an implementation fully compatible and
> optimized for the rule engine.
>
> Very roughly : if the rule engine is a component in a larger 
architecture,
> use java classes. If you're building a rule-based application - i.e. DRL 
is
> your programming language and Drools is your execution environment, go 
for
> DRL.
>
> As for mapping, we have added this very experimental feature lately:
>
> http://blog.athico.com/2011/12/new-feature-spotlight-traits-part-1.html
> 
http://blog.athico.com/2011/12/dynamic-typing-in-rules-traits-part-2.html
>
> I have plans to use annotations to improve the mapping, avoiding the 1-1
> correspondence between fields, so if you want to contribute, if only to 
the
> specifications, let us know :)
>
> Best
> Davide
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> 
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Declarative-fact-model-or-Java-tp3675001p3675181.html

> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users



-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this communication (including any
attachments hereto) is confidential and is intended solely for the
personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to whom
it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying,
or unauthorized use of this information, or the taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original
message. Thank you 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20120120/f39a809c/attachment.html