[rules-users] JBRMS persistence

[Mark Proctor]

We use our own API which currently only has a jackrabbit impl - although 
note that jackrabbit can have several backend types from disk, to memory 
to database, where is even a hibernate persistence store. Creating a JCR 
like implementation is a lot of work, we chose jackrabbit as it is 
opensource and a standard and provides much of what we need out of the 
box - why spend a month or three creating something that is like JCR but 
is implemented with hibernate instead of just just using JCR? So in 
reality our choice for JackRabbit is about time and leveraging what is 
available, as there are no clear alternatives out there. That does not 
mean we are against an alternative backend store, indeed Mic is mucking 
around with a Scala implementation, we wrote against our own API exactly 
so that we could replace JCR if we ever deemed it necessary. If someone 
was to make a better backend for us, we would consider using it.

Mark
Michael Rhoden wrote:
> 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
>   
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20071128/88243540/attachment.html