question on JSR94 compliant jars
by Prem Kumar L
Hi All,
Will I be able to embed the drules rule engine into my application by
adding drools-compiler.jar, drools-core.jar and drools-jsr94.jar into
the applications classpath ?
The reason for the question is this: my application runs on glassfish
and since drools is not supported on glassfish I wanted to be sure
before I go ahead and embed drools into my app.
Any suggestions would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Prem
16 years
Re: [rules-users] MissingPackageName Exception | Eclipse | brl to drl
by Jaroslaw Kijanowski
Hi,
as mentioned in the docs, you could use an ant task. So if you look at
the sources
drools-ant/src/main/java/org/drools/contrib/DroolsCompilerAntTask.java
you will notice, that it adds the package file explicitly.
In your case, try this:
String rulePackageContent = FileUtils.readFileToString(rule.package);
String brl = FileUtils.readFileToString(file);
String outputDRL = rulePackageContent + write.marshal(read.unmarshal(brl));
HTH,
Jarek
----- Original Message -----
Hi,
We created a brl rule using guided editor in Eclipse 3.3
On trying to create a rule package we are getting a 'MissingPackageName'
exception.
As like a brl rule created in BRMS, on eclipse, the DRL source of the
created brl shows only the rule body `with the exception of the package
statement and imports. Our understanding is that packagebuilder in
drools-compiler should pick the package name and the imports defined in the
rules.package text file.
Things work fine for business rules created in guided editor in BRMS. Are we
missing something obvious here? or there isn't a way to compile and test the
brl files created in Eclipse. Any inputs are highly appreciated. Thanks.
Code snippet fyi
File file = new File(test_brl);
BRXMLPersistence read = (BRXMLPersistence)
BRXMLPersistence.getInstance();
BRDRLPersistence write =
(BRDRLPersistence)BRDRLPersistence.getInstance();
String brl = FileUtils.readFileToString(file);
String outputDRL = write.marshal(read.unmarshal(brl));
System.out.println("outputDRl"+outputDRL);
//Output DRL here doesn't show the import
statements
and package name
PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder();
builder.addPackageFromDrl(new
StringReader(outputDRL
)); //Missing package name for rule package exception occurs here
Package pkg = builder.getPackage();
RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
ruleBase.addPackage( pkg );
WorkingMemory workingMemory = ruleBase.newStatefulSession();
workingMemory.insert(obj);
workingMemory.fireAllRules();
16 years
Re: [rules-users] Call a function from a function?
by Edson Tirelli
Michael,
Can you please open a JIRA for it?
It is probably a problem with a text replace algorithm that is being used.
[]s
Edson
2008/5/19 Michael Katai <mk.others(a)gmx.at>:
> Hello Shahad!
>
>
>
> Now, i've a solution for my problem and it looks like a Bug. First, the
> order of the functions isn't important, but I think it's a very strange
> problem with the name of my functions.
>
>
>
> Here my concrete values:
>
>
>
> rule
>
> when
>
> then
>
> checkHierachyInstance(...)
>
> end
>
>
>
> function void checkHierachyInstance(...)
>
> {
>
> checkHierachyInstanceRecursive(...);
>
> }
>
>
>
> function void checkHierachyInstanceRecursive(...)
>
> {
>
> }
>
>
>
> As far as i have found out, the error occurs ONLY if I append anything to
> the functionname "checkHierachyInstance", in my case the word "Recursive".
> It works if I use a completely different name instead of
> "checkHierachyInstanceRecursive" or exchange a character in
> "checkHierachyInstanceRecursive". For example i can use "function void
> myFunc(...)" or "function void checkHierachyInstancRecursive(...)".
>
>
>
> The only combination of function names i'm not allowed to use is
> checkHierachyInstance and checkHierachyInstanceXXXXX
>
>
>
> I've never seen such a curiosity before.
>
> Best regards, michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:
> rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael Katai
> *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2008 6:00 PM
> *To:* 'Rules Users List'
> *Subject:* RE: [rules-users] Call a function from a function?
>
>
>
> Thank you Shahad for your advise, but i doesn't help. I get still the
> error.
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> michael
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:
> rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Shahad Ahmed
> *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2008 3:57 PM
> *To:* Rules Users List
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Call a function from a function?
>
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
>
>
> I had a similar problem, but found that if I declared func2 before func1
> (i.e. func2 appears above func1 in a drl file) then you can call func2 in
> func1. I'm not sure if this is a bug in drools or a limitation of the
> parser.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Shahad
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Michael Katai <mk.others(a)gmx.at> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> Is it possible to call a Function in a Function?
>
> For example:
>
> rule
> when
> then
> func1(data1, data2);
> end
>
> function void func1(MyClass1 data1, MyClass2 data2)
> {
> func2(data1, data2);
> }
>
> function void func2(MyClass1 data1, MyClass2 data2)
> {
> }
>
> When I do so, i get the error message:
>
> func1 : Function Compilation error
> func1 (line:x): The method func2(MyClass1, MyClass2) is undefined for the
> type Func1
>
> Any suggestions?
> michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
16 years
Re: [rules-users] Call a function from a function?
by Shahad Ahmed
Hi Michael,
I had a similar problem, but found that if I declared func2 before func1
(i.e. func2 appears above func1 in a drl file) then you can call func2 in
func1. I'm not sure if this is a bug in drools or a limitation of the
parser.
Regards
Shahad
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Michael Katai <mk.others(a)gmx.at> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Is it possible to call a Function in a Function?
>
> For example:
>
> rule
> when
> then
> func1(data1, data2);
> end
>
> function void func1(MyClass1 data1, MyClass2 data2)
> {
> func2(data1, data2);
> }
>
> function void func2(MyClass1 data1, MyClass2 data2)
> {
> }
>
> When I do so, i get the error message:
>
> func1 : Function Compilation error
> func1 (line:x): The method func2(MyClass1, MyClass2) is undefined for the
> type Func1
>
> Any suggestions?
> michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
16 years
SMF in drools 4.x
by Santoshi, Vishal
I am old school drools 2.x and had created based on the HOUSE example created by own SMF DSL based on drools 2.x.
Than had to take a sabbatical from that project.
As of today, I have been asked to resurrect that project and not a whole lot of drools 2.x has made it to 4.x and of course would like to remain current.
My implementation had an expression engine ( SableCC ) that I had fused in with a customized Semantic Module.
I can get more information out for u , if there is a way to resuse some code.
Any pointers as to how to go about doing this will be highly appreciated.
http://blog.athico.com/2007/12/drools-extensible-process-definition.html seems to be an attempt to explain how the port can take place, but does not seem to have a lot of
concreteness around it.
16 years
How check if all the values in a collection match a criteria
by Alessandro Di Bella
Hi,
I have these two classes:
ExpenseReport{
Collection<ExpenseDetails> expenseDetails
}
ExpenseDetails{
ExpenseReport document
ExpenseType expenseType
}
I am trying to create a rule that fires when all the ExpenseDetails in a
ExpenseReport are of the same type:
rule "Do Not Process TAX"
when
$report: ExpenseReport($expenseDetails: expenseDetails)
forall (
ExpenseDetails(document==$report, expenseType == ExpenseType.TAX)
)
then
System.out.println("################ It works ##################");
insertLogical("Bypass Process");
end
For some reasons, it fires regardless that value of
ExpenseDetails.expenseType.
I just started with drools and any help i more than welcome.
Thanks
16 years
Call a function from a function?
by Michael Katai
Hello!
Is it possible to call a Function in a Function?
For example:
rule
when
then
func1(data1, data2);
end
function void func1(MyClass1 data1, MyClass2 data2)
{
func2(data1, data2);
}
function void func2(MyClass1 data1, MyClass2 data2)
{
}
When I do so, i get the error message:
func1 : Function Compilation error
func1 (line:x): The method func2(MyClass1, MyClass2) is undefined for the
type Func1
Any suggestions?
michael
16 years
Running through Collection using DSL
by Markus Helbig
Hi,
i'd like to do the following in consequence:
for (Iterator it = $collection.iterator(); it.hasNext(); $item = it.next()) {
System.out.println($item);
}
But as always i'd like to use a DSL
[consequence][]For each {item} from {collection}=for (Iterator it =
{collection}.iterator(); it.hasNext(); {item} = it.next()) {
[consequence][]End=}
The Rule:
For each $item from $pli.getItems()
Show $item
End
The DRL Viewer exactly shows what i want to have. But compiling any
rulefile expanding this DSL (also the consequences are not used)
resolve into following errors:
line 68:0 mismatched character '<EOF>' expecting '"'
[0,-1]: unknown:0:-1 mismatched token: [@-1,0:0='<no
text>',<-1>,0:-1]; expecting type END
or
line 131:80 required (...)+ loop did not match anything at character '+'
line 15:74 no viable alternative at character '\'
The reason theems to be
[consequence][]End=}
But why?? Any suggestions, thans very much in advance
Cheers
Markus
16 years
RE: [rules-users] Shadow facts(was JRules\Drools benchmarking)
by Hehl, Thomas
OK, I did. So that means I need to disable shadow facts?
_____
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:22 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow facts(was JRules\Drools benchmarking)
Hehl, Thomas wrote:
I did some reading about shadow facts and I was thinking about turning them
off, but it seems to be that if I use stateless sessions (session.execute())
that shadow facts are irrelevant. Is this true?
No, only if you turn on sequential mode.
Mark
_____
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org>
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org> ] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:00 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] JRules\Drools benchmarking...
It seems you are using a good strategy to do your tests. But still, it is
difficult to explain why one is slower than the other without seeing the
actual test code. This is because all the engines have stronger and weaker
spots. Just to mention one example, some engines (not talking specifically
about drools and jrules, but about all engines) implement faster alpha
evaluation, others implement faster beta (join) evaluation, others implement
good optimizations for not() while others may focus on eval(), etc. It is up
to the point that when comparing 2 engines, one performs better in hardware
with a bigger L2 cache while the other performs better in hardware with a
smaller L2 cache.
So, best I can do without looking at the actual tests is provide you some
tips:
1. First of all, are you using Drools 4.0.7? It is very important that you
use this version over the previous ones.
2. Are you using stateful or stateless sessions? If you are using stateful
sessions are you calling dispose() after using the session? If not, you are
inflating your memory and certainly causing the engine to run slower over
time.
3. Are you sharing the rulebase among multiple requests? The drools rulebase
is designed to be shared and the compilation process is eager and pretty
heavy compared to session creation. So, it pays off to create the rulebase
once and share among requests.
4. Did you disabled shadow facts? Test cases usually use a really small fact
base, so would not be much affected by shadow facts, but still, disabling
them improves performance, but require some best practices to be followed.
5. Do your rules follow best practices (similar to SQL writing best
practices), i.e., write the most constraining patterns first, write the most
constraining restrictions first, etc? Do you write patterns in the same
order among rules to maximize node sharing? I guess you do, but worth
mentioning anyway.
Anyway, just some tips.
Regarding the jrules blog, I know it, but I make a bet with you. Download
the manners benchmark to your machine, make sure the rules are the correct
ones (not cheated ones), run the test on both engines and share the results.
I pay you a beer if you get results similar to those published in the blog.
:)
My point is not that we are faster (what I know we are) or them are
faster. My point is that perf benchmarks for rules engines are a really
tricky matter, with lots of variables involved, that make every test case
configuration unique. Try to reproduce in a different environment and you
will get different performance rates between the engines.
That is why, our recommendation is to always do what you are doing: try
your own use case. Now, whatever you are trying, I'm sure it is possible to
optimize if we see the test case, but is it worth it? Or the perf as it is
already meets your requirements?
Cheers,
Edson
PS: I'm serious about the beer... ;) run and share the results with us...
2008/5/15 mmquelo massi <mmquelo(a)gmail.com <mailto:mmquelo@gmail.com> >:
You r right...
I have to tell you what I have done...
I did not define a "stand-alone" benchmark like the "Manners" one.
I benchmarked a real j2ee application.
I have got jrules deployed with a resource adapter and drools deployed
with simple jars libraries plus jbrms.
Jrules uses a "bres" module which does the same trick jbrms does.
Both of them are deployed on the same AS, in the same time, same
machine (my laptop: dual core 2 duo 1.66, 2GB).
Using the inversion of control pattern I found out how to "switch the
rule engine" at run-time. So I can easily choose then rule engine to
use between drools and jrules.
Ofcourse thay have got two separate rule repositories but both of them
persist the rules on the same DB which is Derby.
The j2ee application I benchmarked sends a request object to the
current rule engine and get back a reply from it. I just measured the
elapsed time between the request and reply generation using drools
first and the jrules.
I did the measurements tens of times.
Both rule engines implement the same rules and the Drools rules (which
I personally implemented) are at least as optimized as the jrules
ones. In the Jrules version of the rules there are a lot of
"Eval(...)" blocks in the Drools version I did not use the "Eval()" at
all ....but I just did pattern matching.
If you want i can send you a more specific documentation but I hope
this explanation will be enough to show you that the measurements I
have done are not that bad.
In any case I noticed that after a warming-up phase, the drools engine
gives a reply back 3 times slower than the jrules engine.
The link I have sent show you something related to it, It reports the
manners execution time using drools and jrules. As you can see the
difference is a 1,5x factor....so I was wrong... drools is not that
slow. In anycase seems to be slower that jrules.
Look at this:
http://blogs.ilog.com/brms/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/jrules-perf-manners.pn
g
<http://blogs.ilog.com/brms/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/jrules-perf-manners.p
ng>
Massimiliano
On 5/15/08, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com <mailto:tirelli@post.com> >
wrote:
> The old recurring performance evaluation question... :)
>
> You know that an explanation can only be made after having looked at
the
> tests used in the benchmark, the actual rules used by both products,
> hardware specs, etc... so, not quite sure what answer do you want?
>
> For instance, there are a lot of people that think exactly the
contrary.
> Just one example:
>
http://blog.athico.com/2007/08/drools-vs-jrules-performance-and-future.html
<http://blog.athico.com/2007/08/drools-vs-jrules-performance-and-future.html
>
>
> My preferred answer is still:
>
> "In 99% of the applications, the bottleneck is IO: databases, network,
etc.
> So, test your use case with both products, make sure it performs well
> enough, add to your analysis the products feature set, expressiveness
power,
> product flexibility, cost, professionals availability, support quality,
etc,
> and choose the one that best fits you."
>
> That is because I'm sure, whatever your rules are, in whatever product
> you try them, they can be further optimized by having a product expert
> looking into them. But what is the point?
>
> Cheers,
> Edson
>
>
>
> 2008/5/14 mmquelo massi <mmquelo(a)gmail.com <mailto:mmquelo@gmail.com> >:
>
>>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> I did a benchmark on Drools\Jrules.
>>
>> I found out that drools is about 2,5-3 times slower than Jrules.
>>
>> How comes?
>>
>> The results I got are quite similar to the ones in:
>>
>>
>>
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.ilog.com/brms/wp-content
/uploads/2007/10/jrules-perf-manners.png&imgrefurl=http://blogs.ilog.com/brm
s/category/jrules/&h=516&w=722&sz=19&hl=it&start=1&um=1&tbnid=YBqwC0nwaSLxwM
:&tbnh=100&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbrms%2Bbencmark%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dit
>>
>> Any explanations?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Massi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> JBoss Drools Core Development
> Office: +55 11 3529-6000
> Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com <http://www.jboss.com>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users>
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com <http://www.jboss.com>
_____
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users>
16 years
Shadow facts(was JRules\Drools benchmarking)
by Hehl, Thomas
I did some reading about shadow facts and I was thinking about turning them
off, but it seems to be that if I use stateless sessions (session.execute())
that shadow facts are irrelevant. Is this true?
_____
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:00 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] JRules\Drools benchmarking...
It seems you are using a good strategy to do your tests. But still, it is
difficult to explain why one is slower than the other without seeing the
actual test code. This is because all the engines have stronger and weaker
spots. Just to mention one example, some engines (not talking specifically
about drools and jrules, but about all engines) implement faster alpha
evaluation, others implement faster beta (join) evaluation, others implement
good optimizations for not() while others may focus on eval(), etc. It is up
to the point that when comparing 2 engines, one performs better in hardware
with a bigger L2 cache while the other performs better in hardware with a
smaller L2 cache.
So, best I can do without looking at the actual tests is provide you some
tips:
1. First of all, are you using Drools 4.0.7? It is very important that you
use this version over the previous ones.
2. Are you using stateful or stateless sessions? If you are using stateful
sessions are you calling dispose() after using the session? If not, you are
inflating your memory and certainly causing the engine to run slower over
time.
3. Are you sharing the rulebase among multiple requests? The drools rulebase
is designed to be shared and the compilation process is eager and pretty
heavy compared to session creation. So, it pays off to create the rulebase
once and share among requests.
4. Did you disabled shadow facts? Test cases usually use a really small fact
base, so would not be much affected by shadow facts, but still, disabling
them improves performance, but require some best practices to be followed.
5. Do your rules follow best practices (similar to SQL writing best
practices), i.e., write the most constraining patterns first, write the most
constraining restrictions first, etc? Do you write patterns in the same
order among rules to maximize node sharing? I guess you do, but worth
mentioning anyway.
Anyway, just some tips.
Regarding the jrules blog, I know it, but I make a bet with you. Download
the manners benchmark to your machine, make sure the rules are the correct
ones (not cheated ones), run the test on both engines and share the results.
I pay you a beer if you get results similar to those published in the blog.
:)
My point is not that we are faster (what I know we are) or them are
faster. My point is that perf benchmarks for rules engines are a really
tricky matter, with lots of variables involved, that make every test case
configuration unique. Try to reproduce in a different environment and you
will get different performance rates between the engines.
That is why, our recommendation is to always do what you are doing: try
your own use case. Now, whatever you are trying, I'm sure it is possible to
optimize if we see the test case, but is it worth it? Or the perf as it is
already meets your requirements?
Cheers,
Edson
PS: I'm serious about the beer... ;) run and share the results with us...
2008/5/15 mmquelo massi <mmquelo(a)gmail.com <mailto:mmquelo@gmail.com> >:
You r right...
I have to tell you what I have done...
I did not define a "stand-alone" benchmark like the "Manners" one.
I benchmarked a real j2ee application.
I have got jrules deployed with a resource adapter and drools deployed
with simple jars libraries plus jbrms.
Jrules uses a "bres" module which does the same trick jbrms does.
Both of them are deployed on the same AS, in the same time, same
machine (my laptop: dual core 2 duo 1.66, 2GB).
Using the inversion of control pattern I found out how to "switch the
rule engine" at run-time. So I can easily choose then rule engine to
use between drools and jrules.
Ofcourse thay have got two separate rule repositories but both of them
persist the rules on the same DB which is Derby.
The j2ee application I benchmarked sends a request object to the
current rule engine and get back a reply from it. I just measured the
elapsed time between the request and reply generation using drools
first and the jrules.
I did the measurements tens of times.
Both rule engines implement the same rules and the Drools rules (which
I personally implemented) are at least as optimized as the jrules
ones. In the Jrules version of the rules there are a lot of
"Eval(...)" blocks in the Drools version I did not use the "Eval()" at
all ....but I just did pattern matching.
If you want i can send you a more specific documentation but I hope
this explanation will be enough to show you that the measurements I
have done are not that bad.
In any case I noticed that after a warming-up phase, the drools engine
gives a reply back 3 times slower than the jrules engine.
The link I have sent show you something related to it, It reports the
manners execution time using drools and jrules. As you can see the
difference is a 1,5x factor....so I was wrong... drools is not that
slow. In anycase seems to be slower that jrules.
Look at this:
http://blogs.ilog.com/brms/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/jrules-perf-manners.pn
g
<http://blogs.ilog.com/brms/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/jrules-perf-manners.p
ng>
Massimiliano
On 5/15/08, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com <mailto:tirelli@post.com> >
wrote:
> The old recurring performance evaluation question... :)
>
> You know that an explanation can only be made after having looked at
the
> tests used in the benchmark, the actual rules used by both products,
> hardware specs, etc... so, not quite sure what answer do you want?
>
> For instance, there are a lot of people that think exactly the
contrary.
> Just one example:
>
http://blog.athico.com/2007/08/drools-vs-jrules-performance-and-future.html
<http://blog.athico.com/2007/08/drools-vs-jrules-performance-and-future.html
>
>
> My preferred answer is still:
>
> "In 99% of the applications, the bottleneck is IO: databases, network,
etc.
> So, test your use case with both products, make sure it performs well
> enough, add to your analysis the products feature set, expressiveness
power,
> product flexibility, cost, professionals availability, support quality,
etc,
> and choose the one that best fits you."
>
> That is because I'm sure, whatever your rules are, in whatever product
> you try them, they can be further optimized by having a product expert
> looking into them. But what is the point?
>
> Cheers,
> Edson
>
>
>
> 2008/5/14 mmquelo massi <mmquelo(a)gmail.com <mailto:mmquelo@gmail.com> >:
>
>>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> I did a benchmark on Drools\Jrules.
>>
>> I found out that drools is about 2,5-3 times slower than Jrules.
>>
>> How comes?
>>
>> The results I got are quite similar to the ones in:
>>
>>
>>
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.ilog.com/brms/wp-content
/uploads/2007/10/jrules-perf-manners.png&imgrefurl=http://blogs.ilog.com/brm
s/category/jrules/&h=516&w=722&sz=19&hl=it&start=1&um=1&tbnid=YBqwC0nwaSLxwM
:&tbnh=100&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbrms%2Bbencmark%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dit
>>
>> Any explanations?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Massi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> JBoss Drools Core Development
> Office: +55 11 3529-6000
> Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com <http://www.jboss.com>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
<https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users>
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com <http://www.jboss.com>
16 years
