[rules-users] Web client-side rule testing - best practices

[Wolfgang Laun]

Perhaps it's helpful - here's the
link<http://members.inode.at/w.laun/drools/DomainSpecificLanguages/DomainSpecificLanguages.pdf>to
the paper backing my talk at this year's Rule
Fest <http://rulesfest.org/>. Section 4 is about data validation.

-W


2011/12/5 Ronald Albury <ronalbury at gmail.com>

> I have always thought of Drools-like systems being server-side engines -
> and we have many server-side-only uses for rules.  However, for a good user
> experience you should do checking as close to data entry as possible, and
> there is a subset of our server rules that are redundant with the rules
> governing client data entry (currently embedded in the Web interface as
> Javascript).
>
> Has anyone established a good pattern for using Drools for client-side
> testing?  I'm guessing that we would need some sort of per-field Ajax
> communication back to the server ... but this means per-field communication
> (not good for our agents on dial-up or with slow links), and it also means
> structuring our rules such that we can easily access only the appropriate
> rules.
>
> Would I, for instance, need a separate Fact object type for each field?
> This seems like it would really complicate the rules - we have about a
> dozen basic data structures for our server-side Facts, and each data
> structure will have multiple attributes.  I don't look forward to dealing
> with a couple hundred Fact types.
>
> Would I need some sort of flag on our data structures to include in the
> Fact which restricts the testing to only the field that was just entered?
> This would seem to complicate the understanding of our rules.  Some rules
> (even UI rules) depend on a combination of facts - so would it be a 'set'
> of flags?  This seems to be moving close to the first idea (separate Fact
> object types ... which seems more efficient).
>
> So ... as you can see, I am thrashing about a bit trying to find the
> correct pattern.  Can someone save me a bunch of time and bad code by
> sharing their best practice with me?
>
> Thanks,
>    Ron
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111205/6116cc9d/attachment.html