We are thinking of dropping JSR94 support in the next release, especially as it doesn't align with our new approach to building rules - which is convention and configuration based, rather than api based.
If anyone has a good case for keeping JSR94, please leave a comment.
If anyone has a good case for keeping JSR94, please leave a comment.
You should keep JSR94 support because it offers interoperability between BRMS vendors.
ReplyDeleteI doubt dropping JSR94 will affect me but I suspect there are users not on the bleeding edge who will be unhappily surprised. I don't know how many systems embed Drools but a high google hit is: . I suppose if you want to hear from your downstream that dropping a feature they depend on is one way to do it! ;-)
ReplyDeleteHmm, the link I was trying to post was to docs.wso2.org/wiki/display/BRS200/File-Based+Configuration
ReplyDeleteI would really appreciate if you could keep the support for JSR94.
ReplyDeleteMy project (RVPF at http://rvpf.org/) allows the embedding of rules engines for stateless computations and stateful event processing. This project is mostly configuration based and is used in some industrial and research environments.
My clients favor stability and will keep a working version for quite a long time. This means that a given version of my framework must allow different versions of the rules engine: one of my clients is still using Drools 2.1!
Thank you for your work on Drools!
Using JSR 94 restricts the rule engine to functions contained in the standard used by most rule engines.
ReplyDeleteGoing beyond that standard means breaking the restrictions of JSR 94.
How about having rules that are tested for JSR 94 and are interchangeable and others that fail the test and are only useable with Drools?
Drools should at least be able to process JSR 94 compliant rules even if it may be able to process more.
"Drools should at least be able to process JSR 94 compliant rules even if it may be able to process more."
ReplyDeleteJSR94 is not related to rule language interoprability. It in no way allows you to write some rules that can run in multiple rule engines. All it does is provide an abstraction load rules and insert/update/delete facts.