[rules-users] Drools 5.3 partitioned rule base

[gboro54]

My previous statement was poorly written(that is what I get for trying to
respond via my cell phone ). I agree that the Order fact is simple enough to
have a rule retract it once processing is completed. As far as the
threading, this is an ejb application being deployed on JBoss 7.1. Because
of this I was hoping to use @Asyn and allow the container to really manage
the threads. This method would simply request the cached session insert the
Order fact, and start the jBPM process to process the Order. Perhaps this
part of the design is still flawed as I have only recently been thinking
about this and I would welcome all suggestions. 

Additionally is there any documentation on utilizing drools in a high
throughput environment(i.e white papers,etc.) This billing project is the
first of many potential projects we are looking to utilize drools for and I
would love to share some more documentation on this(as well as read on
myself). 



gboro54 wrote
> 
> Agreed that I can have a rule to retract the order....i was just thinking
> if the overhead of a reevaluation but can live with that...As far as the
> threading...this logic is going to be deployed on a jboss instance using
> ejb so I was thinking about, using the jboss thread pool...so when I say
> new thread it may not, be new put, pulled from a pool....does that sound
> reasonable?
> 
> 
> 
> laune wrote
>> 
>> Starting a new thread (if that's what you mean by process) for reusing
>> an existing session to process another order is likely to create more
>> overhead
>> and it'll just make threads compete for this resources.
>> 
>> Multiple threads each dedicated to a single session object might be a
>> better way to go.
>> 
>> I don't see any benefit to make simple order facts into events just for
>> the
>> sake
>> of making them expire automatically. There ought to be a well defined
>> state (or states) when processed orders are retracted by some rule.
>> 
>> -W
>> 
>> 
>> On 3 March 2012 14:11, gboro54 <gboro54@> wrote:
>> 
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>>  I really appreciate the help and think I have come to a solution. Let
>>> me
>>> know if this sounds reasonable.
>>> 1. We will continue to use jBPM to coordinate the rules and business
>>> logic
>>> that need to occur in calculating charges for orders. However we will
>>> work
>>> the process to only work on a per order level.
>>> 2. All orders are associated with accounts. We will keep one
>>> knowledgebase
>>> as the rule sets are the same and we will partition sessions by
>>> accounts.
>>> The flow will go as follows:
>>> a. If the session exists insert the order, start a new process instance
>>> and
>>> fire all rules
>>> b. If the session has not been created: create the session, insert all
>>> reference data that will be used by all orders in executions of the rule
>>> set, insert the order, start a process, and fire all rules. This session
>>> is
>>> then cached(via a hashmap more then likely)
>>> c. This process will be invoked asyn from the main thread, allowing us
>>> to
>>> control the multithreading
>>> 3. Orders will be treated as an event and will be set to expire in a
>>> certain
>>> amount of time, allowing us to mange the memory footprint of each
>>> session.
>>>
>>> Does this sound reasonable based on what you know of our usecase?
>>> Additionally with expiring Orders does this cause a reevaluation of the
>>> rules when the expiration occurs? The only other question I have is does
>>> the
>>> expiration clock start when no more activation's get created for the
>>> given
>>> event?
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-5-3-partitioned-rule-base-tp3793558p3795920.html
>>> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-users mailing list
>>> rules-users at .jboss
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at .jboss
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> 
> 


--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-5-3-partitioned-rule-base-tp3793558p3796689.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.