Mark Proctor <mproctor <at> codehaus.org> writes: > > thomaskukofka <at> web.de wrote: > > Hello, > > > > some people write about wrapping the Drools API with an own access API > > for integration in the application. > > Sorry for the perhaps stupid question, but what is the reason for > > this? Does this only make sense if I'm thinking about changing the > > rule engine one day? > yes they do this for rule engine independance. > > If I'm not intending to change the rule engine from Drools to another, > > so isn't it the same if the developpers has to use the native Drools > > API or an self-written access API? > > > > Regards > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > > rules-users mailing list > > rules-users <at> lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list
People also do it to shield against backward compatibility issues even with the same engine. Taking nothing away from Drools, but over the past many version changes there have been issues migrating. Wrapping may not stop it but one can always put checks and balances there so the rest of the application and effective JUnit testing can be done layer by layer. Regards, Arjun > rules-users <at> lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
