6:02 p.m.
I have a main flow that calls a subflow. In this subflow, I am
inserting a fact. In a rule in the main flow, it can not find this fact
in working memory. Is it possible to insert a fact in a subflow and
have it available to a parent flow?
Thanks!
6:23 p.m.
Nevermind, I figured out my problem. It had more to do with the type of
join I was doing rather than flow/subflow.
Thanks anyways.
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 12:02 -0500, Eric Miles wrote:
I have a main flow that calls a subflow. In this subflow, I am
inserting a fact. In a rule in the main flow, it can not find this fact
in working memory. Is it possible to insert a fact in a subflow and
have it available to a parent flow?
Thanks!
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
6:59 p.m.
Eric Miles wrote:
Nevermind, I figured out my problem. It had more to do with the type
of
join I was doing rather than flow/subflow.
yes its all one working memory, no difference.
Thanks anyways.
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 12:02 -0500, Eric Miles wrote:
> I have a main flow that calls a subflow. In this subflow, I am
> inserting a fact. In a rule in the main flow, it can not find this fact
> in working memory. Is it possible to insert a fact in a subflow and
> have it available to a parent flow?
>
> Thanks!
> _______________________________________________
> 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
1:47 a.m.
New subject: JBRMS persistence
Couple questions about the JBRMS persistence layer. I have been trying to
figure out how to upgrade and incorporate the new 4.03 code into my
current app using 2.x and 3.x drools. After many months of off and on
playing with 4.x I want to see if I have some things straight.
1) JBRMS is built atop Jackrabbit. It appears this is the only
option for persistence. Is this correct?
2) It seems Jack Rabbit and the whole JCR standard, while nice I
guess for coders, seems difficult to integrate with. All objects are
stored as binaries, even in the db persistence manager and there is no way
to access the rules except programmatically. Correct?
3) Assuming I'm on the right track with the above two items, and
please don't take this the wrong way, I love you guys and what you are
doing, why use Jackrabbit?
It seems like a real bad idea to have an open system to store
rules and then lock it away. I'm sure you guys have some good reasons but
I'm having a real tough time and quite frankly am disappointed. From my
perspective rules are one of the major assets of my company. I can't allow
them to be locked up in a system. I must be able to access them from a
jdbc source for backups, conversion, referencing, reporting, etc. The data
however complex in structure must be transparent. Say I want to convert
off Drools for another engine, or build around the JBRMS data structure to
extend the app for proprietary purposes, or just want to access the rules
in an indexed way to present them to power users to see the guts of a rule
inside our application. Maybe you can do this now, I just haven't seen the
light.
Again I understand JBRMS is still quite new, and my hope Jackrabbit was
just the quick and dirty way to get this deployed.
4) Are there any plans to have a straight jdbc persistence atop a
hibernate (plug the ole JBoss way) backend?
Not to leave you with just negative bits. Drools 4.x rocks and regardless
of using the JBRMS we are looking at porting up to the latest version. The
new frontend UI (coming soon) to the JBRMS looks nice too. Thanks for all
the hard work.
-Michael
6002
days inactive
6003
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Eric Miles -
Mark Proctor -
Michael Rhoden