>> According to my requirement I have to keep rule for each book separately.
>
> That's the weirdest thing I ever heard. What's the point?
It sounds to me like one of the following:
A poor requirement from someone who doesn't understand the technology.
An overly literal interpretation of a requirement which was not intended to be
technical.
I suspect that you may well need to go back to whoever provided these
requirements and work out which are hard technical requirements and which are
not. And *why*. You may need to renegotiate with them with respect to what you
are building. If they are any good, I would expect them to appreciate being
told there are problems with their requirements now, rather than discovering in
a couple of months time that the application needs to be re-written.
A rules engine based application can be very fast at providing responses, but
as you have found, a poor design can ensure that it seems like the slowest
thing in the world. And it seems that a lot of developers go down a wrong path
which requires a complete re-write of an application. With what you seem to
have, there are no simple performance tweaks that will speed it up enough. It
seems that it needs a fundamental rethink.
One of the most important aspects of rules engine development is understanding
the business intent and being able to work out how to achieve the goal
effectively. As Wolfgang mentions, I reckon you would be better off providing
some details of the problem so that we might be able to help you find a
sensible solution. Otherwise it's looking to me like we would be helping you
waste time on an inappropriate solution.
Steve
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
