Rules Engine - pros and cons

Question

I\'m auditing a project that uses what is called a Rules Engine. In short, it\'s a way to externalize business logic from application code.

This concept is entirely

Answer 1

I've written a rules engine for a client. The biggest win was including all the stakeholders. The engine could run (or replay) a query and explain what was happening in text. The business people could look at the text description and quickly point out nuances in rules, exceptions, and other special cases. Once the business side was involved, the validation got much better because it was easy to get their input. Additionally, the rules engine can live separately from other parts of an application code base so you can use it across applications.

The con is that some programmers don't like to learn too much. Rule engines and the rules you put into them, along with the stuff that implements them, can be a bit hairy. Although a good system can easily handle sick and twisted webs of logic (or illogic often ;), it's not as simple as coding a bunch of if statements (no matter what some of the simple-minded rule engines do). The rules engine gives you the tools to handle rule relationships, but you still have to be able to imagine all of that in your mind. Sometimes it's like living in the movie Brazil. :)

Answer 2

The biggest pro that I've seen for rules engines is that it lets the Business Rule owners implement the business rules, instead of putting the onus on programmers. Even if you have an agile process where you are constantly getting feedback from stakeholders and going through rapid iterations, it's still not going to achieve the level of efficiency that can be achieved by having the people making the business rules implement them as well.

Also, you can't under-emphasize the value in removing the recompile-retest-redeploy cycle that can result from a simple rule change, if the rules are embedded in code. There are often several teams that are involved in putting the blessing on a build, and using a Rules Engine can make much of that unnecessary.

Answer 3

Most rule engines that I have seen are viewed as a black box by system code. If I were to build a domain model, I would probably want certain business rules to be intrinsic to the domain model, e.g. business rules that tell me when an object has invalid values. This allows multiple systems to share the domain model without duplicating business logic. I could have each system use the same rule service to validate my domain model, but this appears to weaken my domain model (as was pointed out in the question). Why? Because instead of consistently enforcing my business rules across all systems at all times, I am relying on system programmers to determine when the business rules should be enforced (by calling the rule service). This may not be a problem if the domain model comes to you completely populated, but can be problematic if you're dealing with a user interface or system that changes values in the domain model over its lifetime.

There is another class of business rules: decision making. For example, an insurance company may need to classify the risk of underwriting an applicant and arrive at a premium. You could place these types of business rules in your domain model, but a centralized decision for scenarios like this are usually desirable and, actually, fit quite well into a service-oriented architecture. This does beg the question of why a rule engine and not system code. The place where a rule engine may be a better choice is where business rules responsible for the decision change over time (as some other answers have pointed out).

Rule engines usually allow you to change rules without restarting your system or deploying new executable code (regardless of what promises you receive from a vendor, do make sure you test your changes in a non-production environment because, even if the rule engine is flawless, humans are still changing the rules). If you're thinking, "I can do that by using a database to store values that change", you're right. A rule engine is not a magical box that does something new . It is intended to be a tool that provides a higher level of abstraction so you can focus less on reinventing the wheel. Many vendors take this a step further by letting you create templates so that business users can fill in the blanks instead of learning a rule language.

One parting caution about templates: templates can never take less time than writing a rule without a template because the template must, at the bare minimum, describe the rule. Plan for a higher initial cost (the same as if you were to build a system that used a database to store values that change vs. writing the rules in directly in system code) - the ROI is because you save on future maintenance of system code.

Answer 4

It (as everything else) depends on your application. For some applications (usually the ones that never change or the rules are best on real life constants, i.e. won't change noticeably in eons, for instance physical properties and formulae) it doesn't make sense to use a rule engine, it just introduces additional complexity and requires the developer to have a larger skill set.

For other applications it's really a good idea. Take for instance order processing (orders being anything from invoicing to processing currency transactions), every now and then there's a minute change to some relevant law or code (in the judicial sense) that requires you to fulfil a new requirement (for instance sales tax, a classic). Rather than trying to force your old application into this new situation where all the sudden you have to think about sales tax, where as before you didn't, it is easier to adapt your rule set rather than having to meddle about in potentially a large set of your code.

Then the next amendment from your local government requires reporting of all sales within a certain criteria, rather than you have to go in and add that, too. In the end you'll end up with very complex code that will prove pretty difficult to manage when you turn around and want to revert effect of one of the rules, without influencing all the others...

Answer 5

Lots of good answers already but wanted to add a couple of things:

1. in automating a decision of any complexity the critical thing rapidly becomes your ability to manage rather than execute the logic involved. A rules engine will not help with this - you need to think about the rule management capabilities that a business rules management system has. Most commercial and open source rules engines have evolved into rule management systems with repositories, reporting on rule usage, versioning etc. A repository of rules, structured into coherent rule sets that can be orchestrated to make business decisions is a lot easier to manage than either thousands of lines of code or a rule soup.
2. There are many ways to use a declarative, rules-based approach. Using rules to manage a UI or as part of defining a process can be very effective. The most valuable use of a rules approach, however, is to automate business decisions and to deliver this as loosely coupled decision services that take input, execute rules and return an answer - a decision. Thing of these as services that answer questions for other services like "is this customer a good credit risk" or "what discount should I give this customer for this order or "what's the best cross sell for this customer at this time. These decision services can be very effectively built using a rules management system and allow for easy integration of analytics over time, something many decisions benefit from.

Answer 6

A rules engine is a win on a configurable application where you don't want to have to do custom builds if it can be avoided. They are also good at centralising large bases of rules and algorithms like Rete are efficient for quickly matching against large rule sets.