untitled
Re-Usability in the Business Rule Approach
by Ronald G. Ross
| This column originally appeared in the Sep./Oct. 1996 issue of the Data Base Newsletter. |
The object community touts re-usability as a major benefit of object orientation
(OO). I believe the business rule approach can produce re-usability on a far
greater scale. Let me explain.
Re-usability means various things in OO. For example, an object class can
(should) be formed such that the services (methods) it provides can be invoked (i.e.,
re-used) by many other object classes. This corresponds roughly to the
traditional notion of modularity in software engineering.
A more specific interpretation of re-usability in OO is that an operation (method)
defined for a supertype automatically is inherited by all subtypes. This enables
re-use. Actually, the real focus, however, is on revisability.
For example, the operation named 'pay salary' for Employee can be revised to 'work'
differently for the subtype Manager. All other object classes (potential 'users'
of the operation), however, are shielded from the distinction.
These are good ideas, but fundamentally they are about software re-usability.
Can the business rule approach potentially incorporate them? Yes (plus inheritance
and revisability for rules). Does the business rule approach potentially
offer more? Yes -- far more. Here's how.
In the business rule approach, rules must be segregated from procedures.
(This is one aspect of what I call 'rule independence.') Followed rigorously,
this produces procedures (I call them 'scripts' -- OO might call them 'use cases')
that are nothing more than simple series of requests (a.k.a. 'thin processes').
An implication is that procedures become 'cheap' -- in effect, throw-away.
That's exactly what businesses need these days to become more adaptive.
In this environment, rules provide the boundary between procedures for normal
business activity and procedures for abnormal business activity (a.k.a. rule violation
activity). Here's how that happens. When a procedure (script) for normal
business activity fires a rule, a violation may be detected. If so, a procedure
(script) to handle it can be invoked automatically. That offers the user the
opportunity to correct the violation -- for example, to create, update, or delete
the data that caused the violation in the first place.
Re-usability arises as follows. Ideally, the invoked procedure (script)
should be the one that in other circumstances would be used for the normal business
activity involving that data. In other words, entire procedures
-- the ones the users should know already -- can be re-used. As far
as I know, OO has no equivalent concept. And without rules, I doubt one can
be found.
|
|
November/December 1999
The Fin de Siegle Legacy Mindset
By Ronald G. Ross
September/October 1999
Analysis Paralysis Just May Save Your Life
By Ronald G. Ross
July/August 1999
If We Had Started Coding Already...
By Ronald G. Ross
May/June 1999
Your Core Business Processes Need a Rule Engine
By Ronald G. Ross
January/February 1999
Four Things Wrong with the Way We Develop Information Systems
By Ronald G. Ross
November/December 1998
Push-Type Data Hub vs. Pull-Type Data Warehouse
By Ronald G. Ross
September/October 1998
What Knowledge Management is About (And What it Has To Do With Business Rules)
By Ronald G. Ross
May/June 1998
The Next Great Leap Forward ~ About the Changes You See
By Ronald G. Ross
March/April 1998
Business Rules as Customer Interface
By Ronald G. Ross
January/February 1998
Components and Business Rules: Do They Connect?
By Ronald G. Ross
November/December 1997
The Policy Charter: A Small-Sized Picture of the Big Picture
By Ronald G. Ross
September/October 1997
Implementing
Application Packages: Is There A Better Way?
By
Ronald G. Ross
July/August 1997
'Why'
is Why Business Rule Methodology is Different
By
Ronald G. Ross
May/June 1997
Never-ending
On-the-Job Training
By
Ronald G. Ross
September/October 1996
Re-Usability
in the Business Rule Approach
By
Ronald G. Ross
March/April 1996
The
Newest Idea In Business Rules: Rules Normalize!
By
Ronald G. Ross
January/February 1996
An
Open Letter to DBMS Vendors: We Need Active Database Systems
By
Ronald G. Ross
May/June 1995
The
Greatest Irony Of The Information Age: Business Rules
By
Ronald G. Ross
November/December 1995
Business
Rules:
Knowledge For Knowledge Workers
By
Ronald G. Ross
March/April 1994
"Play
Ball!"
By
Ronald G. Ross
November/December 1999 & January/February 2000
Enterprise
Architecture: Issues, Ingibitors, and Incentives
By
John A. Zachman
July/August & September/October 1999
Packages
Don't Let You Off The Hook
By
John A. Zachman
November/December 1988
The
History Of Steam-Powered Ships
By
Ronald G. Ross
January/February & March/April 1999
Life
Is a Series of Trade-Offs and Change Is Accelerating!
By
John A. Zachman
January/February 1994
"Business
Rules, At What Cost?"
By
Ronald G. Ross
November/December 1998
"Yes
Virginia, There IS an Enterprise
Architecture"
By
John A Zachman
May/June 1994
Business
Rules: Birth of a Movement
By
Ronald G. Ross
January/February 2000
Business
Systems And Information Support Systems
By
John Hall
July/August 1998
Enterprise
Architecture: Looking Back and
Looking Ahead
By
John A. Zachman
July/August 1991
Why
I Like the Zachman Framework Architecture"
By
Ronald G. Ross
January/February 1998
The
Framework for Enterprise Architecture (The 'Zachman Framework') and the Search
for the Owner's View of Business Rules
By
John
A. Zachman
March/April 1997
Business
Process Re-Engineering
By
Ronald G. Ross
|