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(a)gmail.com>
To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Date: 01/20/2012 06:36 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Declarative fact model or Java?
Sent by: rules-users-bounces(a)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(a)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(a)me.com
On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Davide Sottara <dsotty(a)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-J...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)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