[rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2?
Mark Proctor
mproctor at codehaus.org
Mon Feb 5 14:19:38 EST 2007
not yet.
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
> Are there any (port 80) mirrors from where I can download M1?
>
> The subversion repository at http://labs.jboss.com
> (http://65.244.175.212:8080/portal/jbossrules/subversion.html) is
> inaccessible through our company firewalls (well, I get HTTP500 in reply).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
> [mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> Proctor
> *Sent:* 05 February 2007 12:43
> *To:* Rules Users List
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2?
>
> Sorry you Q was about ruleflow in general, not just general
> releases. Yes RuleFlow is in there and Kris has already done some
> basic tooling. We are currently trying to decide whether we have
> the ruleflow as xml or something like drl. As you do ruleflows
> with tooling we are tempted to keep it xml.
>
> Mark
> Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
>> 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_>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20070205/9dc97406/attachment.html
More information about the rules-users
mailing list