@Jan
The Drools team always appreciates feedback, so I would like to ask you to clarify a few
of your statements if that is ok?
What gives you the impression that Drools Flow does not perform well in the Java world?
An action node can contain any Java code you want. You have direct access to your process
variables (as if they were local variables) and you have clear access to your context
through a kcontext object. You can easily define processes in Java (if you don't like
XML) using a fluent API. The engine itself is a simple Java POJO component that can run
embedded (without any db even). What features are we missing to make it even more
Java-friendly?
Let's suggest you have an application where you're not that interested in rules.
Why do you think Drools Flow has a more complex architecture in that case (basically both
engines are implemented as a simple state machine, if you don't use rules the
underlying technology is very similar)? Does the fact that it is also possible to use
rules make the overall solution more complex? We tried to keep the APIs separate as much
as possible though (check out
http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/labs/labs/jbossrules/trunk/drools-api/src/...,
I don't think it can get much easier than that?).
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4254504#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...