Although not an expert on Flow, I can say that there can hardly be anything fundamentally wrong with this brief Flow, where a simpler solution might be equally possible. Much depends on other circumstances, e.g., possible future developments, deployment, workload,...
-W On 27 May 2011 14:18, sdinoo <sdi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Awesome! This worked > Thank you very much Wolfgang!! > > Though, I have a architectural question > My use case is in "claims processing" and here are the steps that need to > happen > 1) Recieve patients claim (prescription claim, like medicines) > 2) Retrieve the patients Claim History (use patient ID in claim) > 3) Retrieve the drug information (use RxID in claim) > 4) Subject the claim to the rules in drools > 5) Respond with rule results (show the contributing claims that caused the > rules to fire) > > for this , > I created a Rule flow > Step 2) and 3) are rule tasks that ONLY fetch information > Step 4) I want to write the rules (mix of java helper classes and drl) and > subject the claim to that > Step 5) return the results (via the List option that you just gave me) > > Is this the way people use the Rule Flow? > Do you see anyting fundamentally wrong here? > Do you think I should you Stateless sessions instead of rule flow? > > Do let me know > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Accessing-globals-after-FireAllRules-tp2989144p2992639.html > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
