[rules-users] Doubts in Using RulesBase object

[Gabor Szokoli]

Hi,

Without understanding the intricacies, just on general sw engineering
principles:
Is the number of possible package combinations too high to cache a rulebase
instance for each combination, or at least the ones anybody used recently?

If you have n toggle buttons on the GUI to include different packages or
not, then in the worst case you may end up with 2^n rulebase instances.

Or there could be a way to exclude packages from processing in individual
workspaces.
(other than adding a condition like UsePackageX() to each rule in a
package...)


Gabor

2011/1/19 Nikhil S. Kulkarni <Nikhil.Kulkarni at mastek.com>

>  Hi All,
>
>
>
>                 I am using JBOSS Rules 5.0.0, in which I am creating
> multiple RuleBase object based on package passed to it.
>
>
>
> e.g.
>
> public RuleBase (Package pkg)
>
> {
>
>                 RuleBase rb = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
>
> rb.addPackage(pkg);
>
> return rb;
>
> }
>
>
>
> Though I know that creating RuleBase object every time will have huge
> performance impact but it is required because when Multiple requests will
>
> Come on the application server based on functionality that need to be
> triggered based on click of different buttons which internally call Rules.
>
>
>
> So I am trying another option by declaring RuleBase as Static Object so
> that it will be shared across application, but I am facing two  issues in
> that
>
>
>
> Suppose I am using single RuleBase object then all the packages will be
> there that will be added using the above method on click of buttons which
> internally
>
> Call rules by multiple users.
>
> 1)      Now my problem is I cannot remove package after finish of my task
> as user because if Suppose two users A and B are performing the same task
> using different
>
> Login. Now as User A, if he removes the package after its processing of
> rules completed then User B will not find that package for doing its task
> because if they both pass the above method at same time then both fill find
> package present in RuleBase.
>
> 2)      If I keep all the packages as it is in RuleBase then Rules Engine
> will be triggered for all Rules present in all packages satisfying when
> condition.
>
>
>
> So I am not able to understand what I exactly should do because currently I
> am facing performance issues in application and I think the Reason
>
> is multiple RuleBase objects.
>
>
>
> I have to change this So can anyone suggest me what I should do ??
>
>
>
> Waiting for Reply.
>
>
>
> *Thanks & Regards,*
>
> *Nikhil S. Kulkarni*
>
> * *
>
>
>
>
>
> MASTEK LTD.
> In the US, we're called MAJESCOMASTEK
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not that of Mastek Limited, unless specifically indicated to that effect. Mastek Limited does not accept any responsibility or liability for it. This e-mail and attachments (if any) transmitted with it are confidential and/or privileged and solely for the use of the intended person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This e-mail and its attachments have been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. It is the responsibility of the recipient to run the virus check on e-mails and attachments before opening them. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly delete this e-mail from desktop and server.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110119/d001d9fe/attachment.html