Friday, January 26, 2007

What is missing in WWF rules

There is an interesting discussion going on how WWF rules is different from a BRMS solution. Although some comparisions are more related to the comparison with QuickRules.NET, there are quite a few valid points.

The argument list WWF Rules vs. BRMS rules will soon have to be rewritten. Acumen Busines is in the process of providing their tool components for WWF. This will include
  • Rule Repository
  • Rule Validation and Verification
  • Rule Animation
  • Rule Reporting

Stay tuned.


James Taylor said...

I have blogged about the difference between a BRMS and a BRE in this post and its not just the features you list, it also includes a focus on business user rule management. I even wrote a list of selection requirements that you might enjoy!
One additional point though - any platform-specific rules solution makes it hard to share decisions across platforms. If you use Oracle’s, you are pretty much limited to Oracle-centric uses. If you use Microsoft’s, you are likewise constrained. Using a third party BRMS is a little like using a third party DBMS rather than something embedded. It makes your decisions truly a corporate asset.

Marco Ensing said...

Thanks James,

I like your selection requirements lists. I must say the Rule Manager is getting close to the 100% checks. But that is not for me to judge ;)

About the 3rd party BRMS; it is like arguing for another Linux distribution. Competition is good, but the customers benefit will only go for a certain length.


make files explained if you did not grew up with them

Here is a nice post on how to define makefiles for a go project and actually teaching you some makefile constructs: