Ruleflow Definition via Graphical Interface for Rule Engine Execution
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
As the number of rules in a rule engine increases, defining the optimal execution order becomes increasingly complex and error-prone, affecting the outcome and efficiency of rule execution.
Innovation Solution
A graphical user interface (GUI) is provided to allow users to graphically specify the execution order of rules, enabling the creation of ruleflows that define the order in which rule sets should be executed, with activated rules placed into specific groups within the rule engine, facilitating controlled execution.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If the number of rules increases, then the rule engine can handle more complex business logic, but the complexity of defining execution order increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent divides rules into multiple groups (e.g., customer segmentation rules, product segmentation rules) and defines execution order at the group level rather than individually for each rule. This segmentation approach maintains the ability to handle complex business logic while reducing the complexity of defining execution order, as groups can be executed sequentially in a controlled manner.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces a preliminary action phase where rules are pre-sorted and grouped before execution. By preparing the execution order structure in advance through grouping and prioritization, the system can handle large numbers of rules without increasing the operational complexity of defining execution order during runtime.
2Adaptability or versatility
If the number of rules increases, then more business logic can be implemented, but the error rate in defining execution order increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent introduces an intermediary structure (rule groups with designated execution order) that mediates between individual rules and the execution engine. This intermediary layer provides a controlled interface for defining execution order, reducing errors by providing clear group-level ordering instructions rather than requiring precise individual rule ordering among hundreds of rules.
Solution Approach 2:
By segmenting rules into organized groups with explicit execution order definitions, the system maintains high reliability in execution order definition even as the total number of rules increases. Each group has a clearly defined position in the execution sequence, making it easier to verify and less error-prone compared to managing individual rule ordering.
3Ease of operation
If rules are executed in a specific order, then the outcome can be controlled, but the complexity of managing execution order increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the rule execution process into manageable groups with designated execution orders. This segmentation provides outcome control through group-level sequencing while reducing management complexity, as operators need only define the order of groups rather than individually manage every rule's execution timing.
Solution Approach 2:
The execution order is preliminarily established through group organization before actual rule firing occurs. This preliminary structuring enables outcome control through clear group sequencing while simplifying management, as the execution order is pre-determined by group arrangement rather than requiring dynamic individual rule management.
Data Source
AI summary
Some embodiments of a method and an apparatus to define ruleflows for a rule engine have been presented. In one embodiment, a graphical user interface (GUI) is generated to allow a user to graphically specify an execution order of some rules. Then the rule engine is used to execute the rules according to the execution order. The rules may include one or more rule sets, where each rule set contains one or more rules.