http://gregluck.com/blog/archives/2005/01/an-open-source-key-value-standards-over-products/ Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:20:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://gregluck.com/blog/archives/2005/01/an-open-source-key-value-standards-over-products/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Simon Harris Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:56:32 +0000 http://gregluck.com/blog/2005/01/an-open-source-key-value-standards-over-products/#comment-29 P.S. Whilst JESS is a fantastic piece of software, it is in no way Open Source. In fact, it has a particularly restrictive licensing model and costs $$$. P.S. Whilst JESS is a fantastic piece of software, it is in no way Open Source. In fact, it has a particularly restrictive licensing model and costs $$$.

]]> http://gregluck.com/blog/archives/2005/01/an-open-source-key-value-standards-over-products/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Simon Harris Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:54:54 +0000 http://gregluck.com/blog/2005/01/an-open-source-key-value-standards-over-products/#comment-28 Unfortunately your example doesn't do your otherwise probably solid argument, justice. JSR-94 is pretty much a complete waste of time. It's a self-fullfilling prophecy. JSR-94 only succeeds because it's a "standard" for standards sake. People don't understand what it actually privides for (or rather lacks) but because it's a "standard" it MUST be good. So they insist on it. Because they insist on it, open source software, such as drools, is forced to support a worthless standard. Because everyone supports the standard, it is hailed as successfull and a testiment to the idea that standards are ALWAYS a good thing over products. Rule Engines should be chosen on the basis of functionality and suitability to task, NOT whether they are JSR-94 compliant or not. With or whithout JSR-94, you will spend Unfortunately your example doesn't do your otherwise probably solid argument, justice. JSR-94 is pretty much a complete waste of time. It's a self-fullfilling prophecy. JSR-94 only succeeds because it's a "standard" for standards sake. People don't understand what it actually privides for (or rather lacks) but because it's a "standard" it MUST be good. So they insist on it. Because they insist on it, open source software, such as drools, is forced to support a worthless standard. Because everyone supports the standard, it is hailed as successfull and a testiment to the idea that standards are ALWAYS a good thing over products. Rule Engines should be chosen on the basis of functionality and suitability to task, NOT whether they are JSR-94 compliant or not. With or whithout JSR-94, you will spend <1% of your development effort integrating with the rules engine with the bulk of time spent actually designing and implementing the rules themselves. Therefore, the underlying language, tools and features such as backwards/forwards chaining, logical assertions, conflict resolution, etc. should form the core criteria for your decision. JSR-94, like many standards, becomes just another tick-in-the-box. I'm not knocking the original argument, just the example :) My 2 cents worth. Unfortunately your example doesn’t do your otherwise probably solid argument, justice.
JSR-94 is pretty much a complete waste of time. It’s a self-fullfilling prophecy. JSR-94 only succeeds because it’s a “standard” for standards sake. People don’t understand what it actually privides for (or rather lacks) but because it’s a “standard” it MUST be good. So they insist on it. Because they insist on it, open source software, such as drools, is forced to support a worthless standard. Because everyone supports the standard, it is hailed as successfull and a testiment to the idea that standards are ALWAYS a good thing over products.
Rule Engines should be chosen on the basis of functionality and suitability to task, NOT whether they are JSR-94 compliant or not. With or whithout JSR-94, you will spend Unfortunately your example doesn’t do your otherwise probably solid argument, justice.
JSR-94 is pretty much a complete waste of time. It’s a self-fullfilling prophecy. JSR-94 only succeeds because it’s a “standard” for standards sake. People don’t understand what it actually privides for (or rather lacks) but because it’s a “standard” it MUST be good. So they insist on it. Because they insist on it, open source software, such as drools, is forced to support a worthless standard. Because everyone supports the standard, it is hailed as successfull and a testiment to the idea that standards are ALWAYS a good thing over products.
Rule Engines should be chosen on the basis of functionality and suitability to task, NOT whether they are JSR-94 compliant or not. With or whithout JSR-94, you will spend <1% of your development effort integrating with the rules engine with the bulk of time spent actually designing and implementing the rules themselves. Therefore, the underlying language, tools and features such as backwards/forwards chaining, logical assertions, conflict resolution, etc. should form the core criteria for your decision.
JSR-94, like many standards, becomes just another tick-in-the-box.
I’m not knocking the original argument, just the example
My 2 cents worth.

]]> http://gregluck.com/blog/archives/2005/01/an-open-source-key-value-standards-over-products/comment-page-1/#comment-27 Brian McCallister Sat, 22 Jan 2005 05:00:01 +0000 http://gregluck.com/blog/2005/01/an-open-source-key-value-standards-over-products/#comment-27 Sadly, Jess is not open source. Wish it were! It is, in fact, extremely expensive. Sadly, Jess is not open source. Wish it were! It is, in fact, extremely expensive.

]]>