[rules-users] Salience & activation-group

[ronalbury]

Thank you Thomas ... I understand what you are saying and appreciate the
explanation (hopefully it will reduce the number of future questions I
have).  I guess I was looking for an 'evaluation-group' and confused it with
the 'activation-group'. 

Please do not take offense at this - it is important that the development
team understand how Drools is being used, and how it is being received in
the marketplace (and I am not suggesting I could do any better).  I was told
that Drools would suck-up my cpu, and I am now gaining some insight into
why.  

For all of the theoretical underpinnings of Expert, I am ending up with lots
of rules with essentially the same condition (I am including not <condition>
in that lot).  This leads to a less clarity and more difficult maintenance. 
I have also read about and received suggestions that I include extra 'dummy'
(e.g. show-stopper) objects to get the behavior I'm seeking.  My concern is
that this really screws up the clarity and that our analysts won't really
understand (nor should they be asked to).

Is there any advantage to my considering a rule-flow rather than drl rules? 
I am still a newbie and haven't tried rule-flow, but I'm thinking a
rule-flow may improve the clarity.  However, I'm also guessing that a rule
flow does the same sort of evaluations you just explained to me.  If that is
so, would this approach make a bad cpu situation even worse?

--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Salience-activation-group-tp3564649p3564877.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.