1

I implemented some rules like;

  1. Check the id. If it is in convenient date, then add related group, for example, aaaa
  2. In action rule, check that if item is in related group add message or remove message

But I think that it is not convenient for rule engines to use some tables to add new groups and check that groups in action rule than adding some values.

As I saw here I need to use some lookup tables. But my idea is that I don't want to use databases to implement those conditions.

Is there any way to use decision tables as lookup tables, or should I use databases for that implementation? Or is there any way to accomplish that problem?

Thanks for your help.

kc2001
  • 5,008
  • 4
  • 51
  • 92
Cracker
  • 500
  • 7
  • 21

2 Answers2

1

I would say these belong in a database, these are not business rules. Here is an article I wrote on this subject a while back.

Of course, it's not always clear cut in some cases, but you are describing system/reference data, not business rules.

Justin Phillips
  • 1,358
  • 2
  • 12
  • 26
1

Because using decision tables as lookup tables (or reference data) is so often an abused technique, it is something of an anti-pattern. However, there are cases when it is called for:

  • When the business users will need to maintain the rules and reference data in one place, the Decision Center.
  • When you want to manage the rules and reference data in one deployable artifact, the rule app.

The technique can be employed with those benefits for data that numbers into the few hundred rows and which does not have a significantly different lifecycle from the other parts of the decision.

A well written paper describing all the nuances of this and other approaches for managing reference data is here.

David Williams
  • 119
  • 3