[rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2?

Mon Feb 5 06:17:13 EST 2007

Hi,

Is there any update as to the availability of ruleflow in 3.2 as it's
become pivotal to our use of JBoss Rules?

Thanks,

Mike

________________________________

	From: Mark Proctor [mailto:mproctor at codehaus.org] 
	Sent: 23 January 2007 16:50
	To: Anstis, Michael (M.)
	Subject: Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2?

	as soon as MVEL is ready we'll do an M1, but the ruleflow part
is not exposed to thte drl language yet, that will take a few more
weeks.

	Mark
	Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: 

		I might have a play around just to see how I get on, but
think I'll wait for 3.1 before I get "serious" - can I get the latest
(unstable) code (is it CVS or somewhere)?

		- and I won't be using this private address ongoing (I
didn't want to hit the rules list with news of your latest code).

________________________________

			From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
			Sent: 23 January 2007 16:13
			To: Rules Users List
			Subject: Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation:
JBoss Rules 3.2?

			not sure its that simple as the stack concept is
built into the engine. but good luck.

			Mark
			Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: 

				Thanks Mark,

				I think I've got the hang of
AgendaGroups!!

				Presumably if I sub-class DefaultAgenda
and override setFocus(AgendaGroup ag) and getNextfocus() I can implement
my own flow-like mechanism instead of the standard stack. I'd need to
add a way in which to override the DefaultAgenda created in
ReteooWorkingMemory's constructor too but this again should be a simple
sub-class (together with a subclass of ReteooRulebase with override of
newWorkingMemory and a new RuleBaseFactory to allow me to construct
these new objects). Anything major I've missed - my experience with
rules engines now totals a couple of weeks and it's possible I'm missing
the point!!

				With kind regards,

				Mike

________________________________

				From:
rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
				Sent: 22 January 2007 16:33
				To: Rules Users List
				Subject: Re: [rules-users] BRMS:
Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2?

				Anstis,

				We don't have ruleflow, but we do have
AgendaGroups which can provide a form of rule flow, just that its
actually stack based. I'm working on a more general ruleflow idea at the
moment, it may make it into the end of Q1 release, but its not defnite
yet.

				Normally you cache the rulebase in a
singleton and then just creating working memory instances as and when
you need to - creating a working memory is light.

				The guided gui builder is for 3.2, it's
web only based on GWT, I believe that it will also do DSLs (Mic will
have to confirm that).

				Mark
				Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: 

				Hi, 

				I'm evaluating BRMS's for a new project
at work. 

				JBoss Rules today swung into pole
position however I am unclear on a number of features. I wonder whether
this user-group can help?

				I list a number of aspects I "think" are
currently missing in JBoss Rules together with my thoughts: If anybody
can clarify the position, provide alternatives or help push JBoss Rules
I'd be pleased to hear!

				*	We require ruleflow (where rules
run sequentially; like "identify all machines X" then "calculate prices"
- not perhaps a good illustration as this could be written as one rule
"calculate all prices using machine XXX"!!!). Ideally "dynamic" ruleflow
is required too - where the next rule in a sequence is determined by the
outcome of a preceding rule (I have seen dynamic achieved with "trigger"
Facts asserted as the RHS of rules however our "Business Users" cannot
be expected to author rules following this design pattern. I have also
seen static implemented with salience). Is ruleflow (static or dynamic)
part of 3.2 - otherwise we'll need to categorise rules having different
types fired throughout a "coded" process in Java. 

				*	A J2EE runtime to provide
scalability of the RETE engine. We need to have the engine being shared
across sessions on a web-server. What experiences have others had? Do
you simply provide a working memory instance per session (how does this
scale horizontally?). I also read that an Application Server runtime
would be part of 3.2, is this true? 

				*	A rule authoring environment for
end-users. I read on Mark Proctor's blogg that this is in development
but is it set for inclusion in 3.2 and does it handle DSL too; otherwise
we'd have to write out own? 

				With kind regards, 

				Michael Anstis

-------------------------------------------
				Next Generation Estimating System 
				* Trafford House (Int) 8 718 2239 
				* Trafford House (Ext) +44 (0)1268
702239 
				* <mailto:manstis1 at ford.com
<mailto:manstis1 at ford.com> > 

________________________________

_______________________________________________
				rules-users mailing list
				rules-users at lists.jboss.org

https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

________________________________

_______________________________________________
				rules-users mailing list
				rules-users at lists.jboss.org

https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070205/4c1b37d6/attachment.html 