[rules-users] Inferencing

[Mauricio Salatino]

I think that the functionality is the same, compiled (generated) or
interpreted. You will have the same consequences of an interpreted language
or a compiled one.
That's my two cents opinion.

2010/3/8 Tim de Jager <tim.dejager at student.hu.nl>

>
>
>
> Thanks a lot everybody for their awnsers, this clarifies it to some extend
> :)!
>
> What I was talking about was indeed the difference between an: interpreted
> rete engine vs. code generated rete engine vs. the use of no inference
> engine at all (e.g. Visual Rules). One of the questions that pop up: Is it
> possible to maintain the same 'statefull' features with a code generated
> inference engine? Like you said Take generates a backward chaining algorith,
> but would it be able to react to a changed fact like drools can with the
> modify statement? Is code-generated Rete maybe comparable with the drools
> sequential mode?
>
> It could be that I'm mixing alot of things up, I can't find a whole lot on
> this subject.
>
> So do you have any insight on the differences between a interpreted rete
> engine an a code generated one. Would they differ in functionality in any
> way?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org namens Edson Tirelli
> Verzonden: ma 8-3-2010 17:55
> Aan: Rules Users List
> Onderwerp: Re: [rules-users] Inferencing
>
>
>   Hi Tim,
>
>   That is a nice topic for studies, but be prepared for a tsunami of
> information and quite a few controversies. :)
>
>   Regarding your question, I am not sure I completely understand what you
> mean, but it is important to be clear that "generation of code" is an
> orthogonal concern to the chosen algorithm. I.e., take the Rete algorithm
> for example: you can have it fully "interpreted" (I am using the term
> loosely here), you can generate code for it completely, or you can be
> anywhere in the middle. In all cases, the properties of the algorithm itself
> will be preserved (assuming the implementations are correct). Incurring the
> risk of making a mistake here, I will mention that AFAIK Jess falls in the
> first cathegory, OPSJ falls in the second and Drools falls in the 3rd, and
> they are all Rete based algorithms.
>
>   Its been a long time since I last looked at TAKE, but at that time it was
> generating code for a backward-chaining-like algorithm. Not sure what it has
> now.
>
>   So, my suggestion is that you either focus on the properties of the
> algorithms itself (for instance, are you comparing classic Rete with known
> algorithm like LEAPS, TREAT, etc) or focus on the advantages and
> disadvantages of code generation (for instance "interpreted Rete" versus
> "code generated Rete", again using terms loosely here). Mixing everything in
> a single comparison might be misleading.
>
>   Edson
>
>
> 2010/3/8 Tim de Jager <tim.dejager at student.hu.nl>
>
>
>
>        Hi everybody,
>
>        I'm currently doing my bachelor thesis on Rule engines. This
> includes
>        comapring different Rule engine products. I have set up a small Java
> program
>        (Conway's game of life) and I'm writing the 'engine' in different
> Rule
>        engines, while keeping the same GUI,CellGrid etc. I have already
> made a
>        Drools based engine.
>
>        I have been studying the Rule engine subject for somewhat more then
> a month
>        now. And I'm currently seeing two different developments namely the
> use of
>        an inference engine and the generation of embedded code instead
> (Take,
>        Visual Rules etc.)  I can see some of the pro's and cons with both
>        paradigms. But I'm wondering what opinion some of you guys have on
> the
>        subject.
>
>        I can see that without inferencing  it is very hard (or even
> impossible) to
>        keep a statefull session inside the rule engine, haven't seen a
>        non-inferencing rule engine which does offer this possibility. And
> also lose
>        features like TMS. But what would be a concrete example where a
> statefull
>        session is absolutely necessary? Instead of letting the engine
> reason over
>        all the facts in stateless way. And managing conflicts with a
> ruleflow (see
>        Visual Rules for a nice example).
>
>        I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
>
>        Thanks,
>
>        Tim
>
>        P.S I already read two of Mark Proctors blogs on inferencing, but
> while
>        enlightening, they didn't supply me with a definitive awnser
>        --
>        View this message in context:
> http://n3.nabble.com/Inferencing-tp435411p435411.html
>        Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>        _______________________________________________
>        rules-users mailing list
>        rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>        https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>  Edson Tirelli
>  JBoss Drools Core Development
>  JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>


-- 
- http://salaboy.wordpress.com
- http://www.jbug.com.ar
- Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20100308/c3809402/attachment.html