[rules-users] Is a single StatefulKnowledgeSession with Distributed Memory cache possible?

[Wolfgang Laun]

It's difficult proposing alternatives without knowing all the requirements.

If there are no rules that require the presence of transactions with
unknown/indeterminate account numbers, a caching strategy might
be considered. Clearly, this would render relying on Fusion features
obsolete, and (temporary) retractions would have to be done
explicitly. Most frequently used accounts would remain in WM up
for the period you have to consider. Others would drop out due to
being idle for a certain period. A new transaction for some
swapped out account would trigger reloading of old transactions.
(This is akin to some page swapping strategy used to implement
virtual memory in operating systems.)

This isn't a simple task, but given the huge amount of transactions
you have to cope with you may not have any feasible alternative
"out of the box".

-W


On 15 June 2012 03:32, chrisLi <shengtao0077 at 163.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>   Thank you very much for so qucik response. I cannot even believe it!
>
>   As far as I know, the Fusion engine has to store the event details for
> sliding windows. Because if an event
>
> in the window is expired,  the Fusion engine still need this event details
> to update the accumulate results.
>
> So, I think storing the accumulate results for per day could not conform to
> Fusion's logic.
>
>
>   Thank you, all!
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Is-a-single-StatefulKnowledgeSession-with-Distributed-Memory-cache-possible-tp4017968p4017977.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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20120615/1d9bc026/attachment.html