I'm working on that.. probably i have a first draft about it in two weeks from now.. For what i know, it will be included in 5.1. But i think that i could make it work soon. Ask to Mark and Kris about it.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Marc Dzaebel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > w're evaluating Drools Flow 5 as a process engine for bigger projects at > Volkswagen in a world wide szenario. > > There is one crucial question about process persistence. Process instances > are currently saved binary (@LOB) via ObjectOutputStream and > ByteArrayOutputStream through JPA. May be this is efficient for persisting, > however, it disables ordinary database access. E.g. if you use process > variables and need to find a certain process instance with some process > variable values we'd need to unwrap each process for a detailed access. For >>100000 processes in the database this might be too slow as Java needs to > load all instances for access. > > We could save process data redundantly via ordinary JPA queries but this > could be dangeous. It would be a rewrite of process persistence. Is there a > plan to extend the persistence strategy to allow ordinary database access > via JPA (no LOBs)? > > In our current szenario we would have to wrap orders into a process that is > persisted. Of course we'd need to search for older input during the process > directly in the database. > > Thanks in advance > > Marc > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/JPA-persistence-for-Drools-Flow-tp22918819p22918819.html > Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > -- - Salatino Mauricio - _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
