Hi, I want to help with the Maven migration. Just one question, the svn contains many pom.xml, so, what's the problem with the migration? Manuel Alejandro de Brito Fontes alejandro.debrito(a)bluesoft.cl On 05-02-2007, at 9:41, Mark Proctor wrote: > The code for M1 is ready, I'm fighting maven at the moment and losing > :( Btw anyone from the community that wants to work on our build > system would be very much appreciated and will help us put out > releases faster. Currently we use ant with embedded maven, we want to > go to 100% maven but keep hitting bugs :( The latest one is profiles > for ydoc. Anyway if your a maven wiz and want help, please do contact > us. > > 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@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(a)lists.jboss.org >>> [mailto:rules-users-bounces@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(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> [mailto:rules-users-bounces@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@ford.com_> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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