James, On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 06:28:21PM -0500, James Owen wrote: > [...] The whole thing "sounds like" a procedural problem where values are > modified and rules are fired only once. [...]
You're right, and I've felt bad about using this very powerful system in such a limited way. Nonetheless Drools feels like an excellent fit for us: we do have the requirement of having rules editable by non-engineers, and Drools provides all of the structure around that that we'd otherwise have had to come up with, plus a lot of room to grow. I've actually been wondering whether anyone would suggest a way to solve the problem by designing the rules and/or facts differently! I also left out various complications: we have other classes of facts on the LHS, and Thing's attributes appear on the LHS as well as its unmodifiable properties. I considered a design where attributes were first- class facts, but it seemed to run in to the same problem. I don't think any of that goes against your basic point, however. What I wonder is whether it's an inappropriate problem for the tool or merely inexpert use of the tool. Cheers, -- | Dave Schweisguth http://schweisguth.org/~dave/ | | Home: dave at schweisguth.org Work: http://www.nileguide.com/ | | For compliance with the NJ Right to Know Act: Contents partially unknown | _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
