Are there any disadvantages to using the Marshaller instead of JPA for persistence? We are running Drools as an embedded service, and we would favor the Marshaller because we don't want to handle the persisting of the session id between system reboots. We're currently not using JPA in our system, and it seems unnecessary to add it just for Drools. In which scenarios would it be appropriate to use JPA and Marshalling respectively? -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/JPA-vs-Marshaller-for-session-persisten... 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

Does this mean that the JPA persistence has to write out the entire knowledgesession every time a new fact is inserted? I.e. If I have 279 facts, when I insert fact #280, the JPA will write out all 280 facts. It has no way of just writing the delta between 279 and 280? Thanks -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/JPA-vs-Marshaller-for-session-persisten... 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