no that sounds fine for your application. I assume you have a cached single copy of RuleBase (which is where most of the "warm up" time would go). You only need to share working memories if you are keeping state in them that is needed between transactions (as otherwise, you are basically asserting the same objects over and over).
On 4/8/06, Luis Trigueiros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Drools community, > > I am currently working on a project using Drools 2.1 as the rule engine > provider. > > It is a web-based application that uses Drools to implement dynamically > configured logic controlling what the user is allowed to do with domain > objects. > > As such Drools is controlling: forms validation, users ability to access > the > object and his fields, and loads of other stuff it is all very much all > rules driven. > > At the moment during a web request handling cycle we do not reuse the > working memory. In that the same working memory is created multiple times > motivated by: > > · Thread-safety concerns > > · Rules are crosscutting in the system and invoked by several > components that are unaware of each other. > > Given the previous facts I would like to posse following questions: > > · Are we making improper use of Drools by using it this way? > > o Does Drools remember the evaluation previous object state? > > o And if the working memory associated with an object were to be reused > how > could Drools be notified of the change (at the moment were are asserting > the > all object to working memory and > > not using application data) > > I understand that these questions are may sound a bit vague. But maybe > some > of you have already face then while integrating a rule engine in a web > application. > > > > Best regards, Oscar > >
