February 2007 - rules-users - Jboss List Archives

by Mark Proctor

3.1-M1 is now avaliable. M1 provides an unstable snapshot release of trunk and the features todate. Please see the Release Notes and Downloads for more information: Release Notes - http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=3.1M1ReleaseNotes Downloads - http://labs.jboss.com/portal/jbossrules/downloads Happy Drooling The JBoss Rules Team

18 years, 10 months

2
2
0 / 0

exists + normal column constraints - how many times a rule is cal led in the end????

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

Hi, I'm not sure my understanding of 'existential quantifiers' is correct. Hopefully, someone can clear it up a bit... Providing I have the following fact class: Person(role: parent/child, name) And following facts: 1: parent, John 2: parent, Alice 3: parent, Steve 4: parent, Jane 5: child, Eric 6: child, Rob 7: child, May 8: child, April I expect the rule Rule "iterate children if at least one parent is found" When exists Person(role == 'parent') $child: Person(role == 'child') Then // do smth for each $child if at least one parent is found End To iterate through all 'child' persons (facts 5 through 8), ie the action will be called exactly 4 times. Is this correct? What would happen if I swap the order of the conditions (with 'parent exists' constrain going _after_ 'child' constraint): When $child: Person(role == 'child') exists Person(role == 'parent') Thanks, Vlad

18 years, 10 months

2
1
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] Using JBoss Rules for implementing "sparse" lookuptables

by Ho, Alan

Drools 3.1 has the a new conditional element called "from". You can do queries on your database (hibernate) or any other data structure: e.g. $r : Restaurant( $postCode ) from hbSession.getNamedQuery( "some query" ).setProperties( [ key1 : value2, key2 : value ] ).list() The "rule per row" doesn't work very well. I've had a discussion with Michael Neale about this and got some good advice. I've added my conversation with Michael below. Regards, Alan Ho See this thread: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Neale yeah you can emulate backwards type chaining approaches by writing rules who assert "control facts" like assert(new RequestLookup("key info")); - there is then another rule which actually performs the lookup, and pulls the data from the DB, and asserts it into the working memory as needed (and retracts the request control fact). On 6/20/06, Ho, Alan <alanho(a)amazon.com> wrote: Thanks !!! It makes a lot of sense to have a set of rules to load facts, and another set of rules to operate on those facts. Regards, Alan Ho -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Neale Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:46 PM To: Ho, Alan Subject: Re: Dealing with thousands of rules Hi Alan. Yes I think follow what you are saying. On a practical note, many many thousands of rules would hurt, as at present java semantics are compiled into little classes behind the scenes (and JVMs can only take so much !) - soon - if no java semantics are used, no java classes will be created so that problem goes away. Still, millions of rules doesn't feel right does it. There are often ways you can rewrite it so that you just have a few rules, but millions of facts (hard to explain in abstract !) - so you have a rule that joins 2 unrelated facts together, and asserts the combination, and another rule that handles that combination. but anyway... I think when you are talking about data wrangling like this, SQL DBs are the best proven system in the world, so its sensible to use it. Backwards chaining maybe: you can simulate this now by having a "RequestForData" fact object, and a rule that responds to one of those objects, and then runs the query to retrieve the results - this is kind of how Jess "compiles in" backward chaining support (we will probably do something different - more like prolog from what Mark tells me). BUT, Mark has been working in his spare time in a "from" keyword feature, so it can reason over facts that are not in working memory (like from a database) - yet do all the usual things. Some thing like when r: RequestingCustomer() from lookup.getCustomers() with lookup being some global utility you pass in, or else another bound fact, anything really (its like JRules). It saves asserting lots of things into working memory. Not sure how this would exactly solve your problem, as I haven't quite understood it. But at the end of the day, I think perhaps having that database table is sensible - even if you had a to have a pure java system, HSQLDB could easily cope with that sort of load (all in memory) - SQL DBs are born for that stuff ! Does that help at all? On 6/16/06, Ho, Alan <alanho(a)amazon.com> wrote: Hi Michael, I've been quite interested with the Jboss Rules project for a while now, but I'm running into a use case that is not quite working out for our team. Imagine a service that controls what kind of books people can buy : Here is the rule that I want to implement: when RequestingCustomer == "Sally" and interestingBook = "Bible" then RequestingCustomer can by interestingBook end The problem is there maybe thousands of customers and thousands of books, hence potentially millions of rules. Instead to implement the rule, we end up having to use a SQL statement: when eval( (ExecuteSQL(select count(*) from CustomerRuleTable where customer = RequestingCustomer and book=interestingBook)) > 1 ) then RequestingCustomer can by interestingBook End The CustomerRuleTable will only have two columns -> customer and book. I wish there was a way to implement this more elegantly ( backwards chaining ?). Thanks, Alan Ho -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Varakin Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 2:41 PM To: Drools Users List Subject: [rules-users] Using JBoss Rules for implementing "sparse" lookuptables Hi, I am thinking of using JBoss Rules for implementing "sparse" lookup tables, e.g. suppose I have a lookup table which contains data like this: PostalCodeOrZIP StateOrProvince Country DistanceFromNorthPole 07645 NJ USA 1200 - NJ USA 1100 - - USA 1000 - Ontario CA 600 - - CA 500 The objective is to find a best matching row in the table, given PostalCodeOrZIP, StateorProvince and Country and return DistanceFromNorthPole. Another variation is just try to find a matching row in the table and return true if row is found. Note that some records may have fields with omitted values, e.g. if we know ZIP code, then we dont need to know state. Also we may have incomplete data, e.g. for some countries there will be only one row for the entire country, and some countries may not have any rows. Very important requirement is that the lookup table may grow up to 100K rows. It looks like this objective can be easily accomplished by translating the lookup table into a rule set with a rule per row in the table and then use pattern matching of JBoss Rules for matching the rows. My only concerns is that such implementation may consume too much memory, considering that I will need to build ruleset with 100K rules. Could somebody let me know whether using JBoss Rule for this task is a good idea and give some ideas on optimizing memory consumption. Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

18 years, 10 months

2
1
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] conditional insert of 'exist' or 'not' keywords in decision table s

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

Thanks, Steve. That really seems to do the trick. Are there any wiki pages on this new functionality? Or for now one should refer to the source code & unit tests? I also wonder what other functionality the new templating engine has? Is it possible to define different 'types' of rules in the same 'rule' template and refer to these types from 'Excel' data fields (eg, have one column per rule where you can refer 'rule template XXX' from drl file; this value can override some default value for example). If not, how such situations can be handled? (ie, when one needs several type of rules driven by the same data?) Thanks, Vlad _____ From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Steven Williams Sent: 17 February 2007 04:25 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] conditional insert of 'exist' or 'not' keywords in decision table s Hi Vlad, With the new decision table handling you could use the following template to do it: Given a table as follows: exists, 21, 25 , comprehensive not, 64, 100 exists, comprehensive the following template does what you want: template header driver[] policy[] package This_is_a_ruleset; #generated from Decision Table import example.model.Driver; import example.model.Policy ; template "Driver policy" driver policy rule "driver policy $row.rowNumber$" when $driver0$ Driver(age >= $driver1$, age <= $driver2$) $policy0$ Policy(type = "$policy1$") then //do smth end end template the code to call it was: public void testColumnKeywords() { final ExternalSpreadsheetCompiler converter = new ExternalSpreadsheetCompiler(); final String drl = converter.compile( "/data/TestWorkbook.xls", "/templates/test_keywords.drl", InputType.XLS, 1, 1 ); // DT starts at Row 1, Column 1 System.out.println(drl); } cheers Steve On 2/17/07, Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) < <mailto:Vladimir.Olenin@moh.gov.on.ca> Vladimir.Olenin(a)moh.gov.on.ca> wrote: Hi, I wonder if it's possible to pass some Column keywords as parameters from template values, eg: Condition Condition $1 Driver $1 Policy age >= $2, age <= $3 type exists, 21, 25 , comprehensive not, 64, 100 exists, comprehensive I'd expect the above table would generate two rules like: Rule 1 When exists Driver (age >= 21, age <= 25) Policy(type == "comprehensive") Then // do smth End Rule 2 When not Driver (age >= 64, age <= 100) exists Policy (type == "comprehensive") then // do smth End The above example is just a mock up derived from one of the examples in the documentation to demonstrate the point (meaning, the rules themselves might not make sense from business point of view or can be implemented differently for this particular case). So, any way to achieve this? Whether in current version (3.0.x) or the upcoming release (3.2) Thanks, Vlad _______________________________________________ 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> -- Steven Williams Supervising Consultant Object Consulting Office: 8615 4500 Mob: 0439 898 668 Fax: 8615 4501 stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au <mailto:stevenw@objectconsulting.com.au> www.objectconsulting.com.au <http://www.objectconsulting.com.au> consulting | development | training | support our experience makes the difference

18 years, 10 months

2
1
0 / 0

Handling ArrayList objects in rule conditions

by Diwakar

I am a beginner. I have an ArrayList object - Say BoxList Object containing 10 Box objects . I need to check if the length of the bos is 10cm on each box object. How do I write this as rule condition. Is there any way to write the rule for iterating the BoxList to check the length of each box Can you please help? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Handling-ArrayList-objects-in-rule-conditions-tf325... Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

18 years, 10 months

2
1
0 / 0

Using JBoss Rules for implementing "sparse" lookup tables

by Alexander Varakin

Hi, I am thinking of using JBoss Rules for implementing "sparse" lookup tables, e.g. suppose I have a lookup table which contains data like this: PostalCodeOrZIP StateOrProvince Country DistanceFromNorthPole 07645 NJ USA 1200 - NJ USA 1100 - - USA 1000 - Ontario CA 600 - - CA 500 The objective is to find a best matching row in the table, given PostalCodeOrZIP, StateorProvince and Country and return DistanceFromNorthPole. Another variation is just try to find a matching row in the table and return true if row is found. Note that some records may have fields with omitted values, e.g. if we know ZIP code, then we dont need to know state. Also we may have incomplete data, e.g. for some countries there will be only one row for the entire country, and some countries may not have any rows. Very important requirement is that the lookup table may grow up to 100K rows. It looks like this objective can be easily accomplished by translating the lookup table into a rule set with a rule per row in the table and then use pattern matching of JBoss Rules for matching the rows. My only concerns is that such implementation may consume too much memory, considering that I will need to build ruleset with 100K rules. Could somebody let me know whether using JBoss Rule for this task is a good idea and give some ideas on optimizing memory consumption. Thanks, Alex

18 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

java.lang.NoSuchMethodError:org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.CompilationResult.getProblems()[

by Nagabhushanam B

Hi , I have installed Eclipse 3.2 and tomcat 5.5, when I am trying to jboss rule I am getting the following exception Even though I added org.eclipse.jdt.core_3.2.0.v_671.jar in to my class path Guys help me out from this… urgent java.lang.NoSuchMethodError:org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.CompilationResult.getProblems ()[Lorg/eclipse/jdt/core/compiler/IProblem; at org.apache.jasper.compiler.JDTCompiler$2.acceptResult(* JDTCompiler.java:341*) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.Compiler.compile(*Compiler.java :417*) at org.apache.jasper.compiler.JDTCompiler.generateClass(* JDTCompiler.java:399*) at org.apache.jasper.compiler.Compiler.compile(*Compiler.java:288*) at org.apache.jasper.compiler.Compiler.compile(*Compiler.java:267*) at org.apache.jasper.compiler.Compiler.compile(*Compiler.java:255*) at org.apache.jasper.JspCompilationContext.compile(* JspCompilationContext.java:556*) at org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServletWrapper.service(* JspServletWrapper.java:293*) at org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServlet.serviceJspFile(* JspServlet.java:314*) at org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServlet.service(*JspServlet.java:264*) at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(*HttpServlet.java:802*) at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(* ApplicationFilterChain.java:252*) at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(* ApplicationFilterChain.java:173*) at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardWrapperValve.invoke(* StandardWrapperValve.java:213*) at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContextValve.invoke(* StandardContextValve.java:178*) at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardHostValve.invoke(* StandardHostValve.java:126*) at org.apache.catalina.valves.ErrorReportValve.invoke(* ErrorReportValve.java:105*) at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardEngineValve.invoke(* StandardEngineValve.java:107*) at org.apache.catalina.connector.CoyoteAdapter.service(* CoyoteAdapter.java:148*) at org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11Processor.process(* Http11Processor.java:868*) at org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11Protocol$Http11ConnectionHandler.processConnection (*Http11Protocol.java:744*) at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.PoolTcpEndpoint.processSocket(* PoolTcpEndpoint.java:527*) at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.LeaderFollowerWorkerThread.runIt(* LeaderFollowerWorkerThread.java:80*) at org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.ThreadPool$ControlRunnable.run(* ThreadPool.java:684*) at java.lang.Thread.run(*Thread.java:534*) Thanks & Regards Nagabhushanam Bheemisetty

18 years, 10 months

5
7
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] Convert logic to DRL rules

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

To improve my understanding of DROOLS a bit, just a small follow up question. If the modification of the business domain model is correct and will result in the correct behavior, I wonder what kind of performance implications such modification will bring (to compare with 'flatten' model)? Would the performance become worse, better or remain approximately the same (for a significant number of rules & fact objects)? Currently I'm at the cross roads whether to create such artificial 'inverted index' for my application or not (I didn't know that the connective constraints are available in 3.1M...). Thanks, Vlad -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli Sent: 19 February 2007 11:05 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Convert logic to DRL rules Vlad, I think that for Bill's case, the object structure is flatten already (what is good for rules). Creating nested objects will actually make it more difficult to write the rules... Just my 0.02c []s Edson Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) wrote: >I guess if you modify the business objects a bit (in quite weird way - I >think it would be rather a shortcut than a solution) you can implement this >kind of logic: you need to swap property (zipcode, age, etc) and 'property >ownner' (Person) objects, so that you'll have: > >Person (id) >ZipCode (id, code) >Age (id, age) >Etc > >In this case you should be able to write: > >Rule X >When > $p: Person($id: id) > ( > ZipCode(id == $id, code == "23456") > or ZipCode(id == $id, code == "68590") > ) > And > ( > Age(id == $id, age < 25) > Or Age(id == $id, age > 34) > ) >Then > // do smth using $p >End > > >Or smth along those lines... Would that work?..... > > >Vlad > > >-----Original Message----- >From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Bill Zhang >Sent: 19 February 2007 09:14 >To: Rules Users List >Subject: Re: [rules-users] Convert logic to DRL rules > >Hi Alex, > >Thank you for confirming this. Writing such a builder may take us a >lot of time because our business user is used to free style >Pascal-like authoring using quite complex logic. For example, > >IF >( > ( > (Person.Age > 35 OR Person.Age < 25) AND > (Person.ZipCode =23546 or Person.ZipCode = 68590) > ) > and > ( > (Person.LastOrderPrice > 300 OR > (Person.TotalOrderNumber > 2) > ) >) >OR >( > ( > (Person.LastOrderCategory in ("098", "109") ) AND > (Person.ZipCode =74567 or Person.ZipCode = 23765) > ) > and > ( > (Person.LastOrderPrice > 1000 OR > (Person.TotalOrderNumber > 1) > ) >) >... > >THEN Person.Status = "KT"; > >Before I set out to write the builder, I would like to know whether >the new syntax can handle the above logic? Also, where can I find >document for the new syntax? > >I am also trying to find some existing open source Java library to >"flatten out" these complex logic - to break these complex logic to >atomic ones that can be handled by Drools. Do you have any >recommendation? > >Thanks a lot for your help. > >Bill Y. > > > > >On 2/19/07, Alexander Varakin <avarakin(a)optonline.net> wrote: > > >>We built a Rule Builder which creates drl with all possible >>combinations. In any case, drl syntax is not exactly business user >>friendly, so having such builder is not a bad idea. >>Simple Rule Builder can be implemented as an Excel spreadsheet, which >>can be easily parsed using POI library and then drl file produced. >> >>Steven Williams wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Bill, >>> >>>To implement your rules in 3.0.5 you would need to implement a rule >>>for each combination of age and zipCode. >>> >>>$a : Person(age > 35 zipCode == 23546) >>>then >>>$a.setStatus("KT"); >>> >>>$a : Person(age < 25, zipCode == 23546 ) >>>then >>>$a.setStatus("KT"); >>> >>>$a : Person(age > 35, zipCode == 68590) >>>then >>>$a.setStatus("KT"); >>> >>>etc.. >>> >>>Steve >>> >>>On 2/19/07, *Bill Zhang* <billzhang2006(a)gmail.com >>><mailto:billzhang2006@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> So Alex, if I only want to use the old syntax that is in production, >>> there is no way to implement my seemingly simple logic conditioning? >>> >>> Thanks for your help. >>> >>> On 2/18/07, Alexander Varakin < avarakin(a)optonline.net >>> <mailto:avarakin@optonline.net>> wrote: >>> > As far as I know this syntax is new and is available in SVN >>> only, you >>> > will have to wait till 3.1 is released or take source from SVN >>> and build it. >>> > >>> > Bill Zhang wrote: >>> > > Hi Steven, >>> > > >>> > > Thank you very much for your help. Really appreciate. >>> > > >>> > > I still got the same error, Unexpected token '|'. I did not >>> see "|" in >>> > > the document, only saw "||", which is supposed to be used with >>> > > columns. >>> > > >>> > > Ye >>> > > >>> > > On 2/18/07, Steven Williams < stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au >>> <mailto:stevenw@objectconsulting.com.au>> wrote: >>> > >> Hi Bill, >>> > >> >>> > >> I think it should be: >>> > >> >>> > >> $a : Person(age > 35 | < 25, zipCode == 23546 | == 68590) >>> > >> >>> > >> Edson, Mark or Michael can probably confirm or correct the >>> above syntax. >>> > >> >>> > >> Make sure you are running of the latest trunk. >>> > >> >>> > >> cheers >>> > >> Steve >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> On 2/18/07, Bill Zhang <billzhang2006(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:billzhang2006@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> > >> > >>> > >> > I tried: >>> > >> > >>> > >> > $a : Person(age > 35 || age < 25, zipCode == 23546 || == >>> >>> >68590) > > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Errors: >>> > >> > org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage : unknown:39:30 >>> > >> Unexpected token '||' >>> > >> > unknown:39:40 mismatched token: >>> > >> [@246,1040:1041='<=',<47>,39:40]; >>> > >> > expecting type '(' >>> > >> > unknown:39:92 mismatched token: >>> > >> [@258,1092:1092='<',<46>,39:92]; >>> > >> > expecting type '(' >>> > >> > >>> > >> > I also tried >>> > >> > >>> > >> > $a : Person(age > 35 | age < 25, zipCode == 23546 | == 68590) >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Pretty much the same error. >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Based on the document, "||" is only valid for columns... >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > On 2/17/07, Bill Zhang <billzhang2006(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:billzhang2006@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> > >> > > Thank you Steve. But I got syntax error using the >>> >>> >following. > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > On 2/17/07, Steven Williams >>> <stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au >>> <mailto:stevenw@objectconsulting.com.au>> wrote: >>> > >> > > > In trunk I think you can use connective constraints: >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > $a : Person(age > 35 | < 25, zipCode == 23546 | == 68590) >>> > >> > > > then >>> > >> > > > $a.setStatus("KT"); >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > On 2/18/07, Bill Zhang < billzhang2006(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:billzhang2006@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > Hello, >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > I am a new Drools user trying to convert the >>> following simple >>> > >> logic >>> > >> into >>> > >> > > > DRL: >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > IF (Person.Age > 35 OR Person.Age < 25) AND >>> (Person.ZipCode = >>> > >> 23546 >>> > >> or >>> > >> > > > > Person.ZipCode = 68590) >>> > >> > > > > THEN >>> > >> > > > > Person.Status = "KT"; >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > I found that it is not easy to convert the above >>> logic into >>> > >> ONE DRL >>> > >> rule. >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > I tried something like this >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > when >>> > >> > > > > $a: Person(age>35) or Person (age<25) >>> > >> > > > > $b: Person(Zipcode==23456) or Person (ZipCode == 68590) >>> > >> > > > > $c: $a and $b >>> > >> > > > > Then >>> > >> > > > > $c.setStatus("KT") >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > But looks like I can not use >>> > >> > > > > $c: $a and $b >>> > >> > > > > becaue in Drools, you can only bind variable to >>> column, not >>> > >> to other >>> > >> > > > varaibles. >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > Please advise how to do this. I would imagine this >>> should be >>> > >> quite >>> > >> > > > > simple, maybe I missed something quite obvious. >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > I know that I can write custom Java method to do >>> this, but if >>> > >> I do >>> > >> > > > > that, I suppose I lose the power of RETEOO pattern >>> matching >>> > >> (pattern >>> > >> > > > resuing, >>> > >> > > > > etc.). So I prefer not to do that. >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > I also understand I can break the above logic into 4 >>> rules >>> > >> and that >>> > >> > > > > would be quite easy, but our business user is not used >>> >>> >to > > >>> > >> think in >>> > >> > > > > that way. Also, we have more complex logic than the >>> above. So >>> > >> what I >>> > >> > > > > want is to see if there is a way to convert this >>> > >> > > > > kind of logic in ONE DRL rule. >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks in advance. >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > Bill >>> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > >> > > > > rules-users mailing list >>> > >> > > > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > -- >>> > >> > > > Steven Williams >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > Supervising Consultant >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > Object Consulting >>> > >> > > > Office: 8615 4500 Mob: 0439 898 668 Fax: 8615 4501 >>> > >> > > > stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au >>> <mailto:stevenw@objectconsulting.com.au> >>> > >> > > > www.objectconsulting.com.au >>> <http://www.objectconsulting.com.au> >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > consulting | development | training | support >>> > >> > > > our experience makes the difference >>> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > >> > > > rules-users mailing list >>> > >> > > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> >>> > >> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > _______________________________________________ >>> > >> > rules-users mailing list >>> > >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> >>> > >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> > >> > >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> -- >>> > >> Steven Williams >>> > >> >>> > >> Supervising Consultant >>> > >> >>> > >> Object Consulting >>> > >> Office: 8615 4500 Mob: 0439 898 668 Fax: 8615 4501 >>> > >> stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au >>> <mailto:stevenw@objectconsulting.com.au> >>> > >> www.objectconsulting.com.au >>> >>> ><http://www.objectconsulting.com.au> > > >>> > >> >>> > >> consulting | development | training | support >>> > >> our experience makes the difference >>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>> > >> rules-users mailing list >>> > >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>> >>> ><mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> > > >>> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > 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> >>> > > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > rules-users mailing list >>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> >>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-users mailing list >>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Steven Williams >>> >>>Supervising Consultant >>> >>>Object Consulting >>>Office: 8615 4500 Mob: 0439 898 668 Fax: 8615 4501 >>>stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au <mailto:stevenw@objectconsulting.com.au> >>>www.objectconsulting.com.au <http://www.objectconsulting.com.au> >>> >>>consulting | development | training | support >>>our experience makes the difference >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 > > > -- Edson Tirelli Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer Office: +55 11 3124-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

18 years, 10 months

2
1
0 / 0

Drools With Spring Framework Problem

by Niyas

Hi all, I am in need of integrating Drools JBoss Rule Engine with Spring Framework. I have tried sample rule engine examples in the Drools in the standalone with the help od drools IDE for eclipse 3.2. And I also tried some example in the Spring Framework,to know how it works. I have tried some examples in IOC, MVC and JDBC in the spring framework. Now, I want to use both Drools and Spring Framework in such a way that Spring will have the MVC application and it should validate the rules, which written in the drools (.drl) I don't know how to begin with/what are he configuration files needed to setup. PLease if anyone have the sample coding on Drools with Spring or any other links willl be very useful. And also, guide me what are the things need to be know for Spring with Drools. While I have searched in google, lots of things came up like: Use JSR94... (which is mentioning to configure RuleServiceProvider, RuleRuntime, RuleSet..and others..which seeme to be confusing and not clear) Whether there are any API for drools with spring that DROOLS is supporting..like org.drools.spring.metadata.ArgumentMetadataSource. I don't find these Drools API section http://labs.jboss.com/file-access/default/members/jbossrules/freezone/doc...

18 years, 10 months

2
1
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] Convert logic to DRL rules

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

I guess if you modify the business objects a bit (in quite weird way - I think it would be rather a shortcut than a solution) you can implement this kind of logic: you need to swap property (zipcode, age, etc) and 'property ownner' (Person) objects, so that you'll have: Person (id) ZipCode (id, code) Age (id, age) Etc In this case you should be able to write: Rule X When $p: Person($id: id) ( ZipCode(id == $id, code == "23456") or ZipCode(id == $id, code == "68590") ) And ( Age(id == $id, age < 25) Or Age(id == $id, age > 34) ) Then // do smth using $p End Or smth along those lines... Would that work?..... Vlad -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Bill Zhang Sent: 19 February 2007 09:14 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Convert logic to DRL rules Hi Alex, Thank you for confirming this. Writing such a builder may take us a lot of time because our business user is used to free style Pascal-like authoring using quite complex logic. For example, IF ( ( (Person.Age > 35 OR Person.Age < 25) AND (Person.ZipCode =23546 or Person.ZipCode = 68590) ) and ( (Person.LastOrderPrice > 300 OR (Person.TotalOrderNumber > 2) ) ) OR ( ( (Person.LastOrderCategory in ("098", "109") ) AND (Person.ZipCode =74567 or Person.ZipCode = 23765) ) and ( (Person.LastOrderPrice > 1000 OR (Person.TotalOrderNumber > 1) ) ) ... THEN Person.Status = "KT"; Before I set out to write the builder, I would like to know whether the new syntax can handle the above logic? Also, where can I find document for the new syntax? I am also trying to find some existing open source Java library to "flatten out" these complex logic - to break these complex logic to atomic ones that can be handled by Drools. Do you have any recommendation? Thanks a lot for your help. Bill Y. On 2/19/07, Alexander Varakin <avarakin(a)optonline.net> wrote: > We built a Rule Builder which creates drl with all possible > combinations. In any case, drl syntax is not exactly business user > friendly, so having such builder is not a bad idea. > Simple Rule Builder can be implemented as an Excel spreadsheet, which > can be easily parsed using POI library and then drl file produced. > > Steven Williams wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > > > To implement your rules in 3.0.5 you would need to implement a rule > > for each combination of age and zipCode. > > > > $a : Person(age > 35 zipCode == 23546) > > then > > $a.setStatus("KT"); > > > > $a : Person(age < 25, zipCode == 23546 ) > > then > > $a.setStatus("KT"); > > > > $a : Person(age > 35, zipCode == 68590) > > then > > $a.setStatus("KT"); > > > > etc.. > > > > Steve > > > > On 2/19/07, *Bill Zhang* <billzhang2006(a)gmail.com > > <mailto:billzhang2006@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > So Alex, if I only want to use the old syntax that is in production, > > there is no way to implement my seemingly simple logic conditioning? > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > On 2/18/07, Alexander Varakin < avarakin(a)optonline.net > > <mailto:avarakin@optonline.net>> wrote: > > > As far as I know this syntax is new and is available in SVN > > only, you > > > will have to wait till 3.1 is released or take source from SVN > > and build it. > > > > > > Bill Zhang wrote: > > > > Hi Steven, > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for your help. Really appreciate. > > > > > > > > I still got the same error, Unexpected token '|'. I did not > > see "|" in > > > > the document, only saw "||", which is supposed to be used with > > > > columns. > > > > > > > > Ye > > > > > > > > On 2/18/07, Steven Williams < stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au > > <mailto:stevenw@objectconsulting.com.au>> wrote: > > > >> Hi Bill, > > > >> > > > >> I think it should be: > > > >> > > > >> $a : Person(age > 35 | < 25, zipCode == 23546 | == 68590) > > > >> > > > >> Edson, Mark or Michael can probably confirm or correct the > > above syntax. > > > >> > > > >> Make sure you are running of the latest trunk. > > > >> > > > >> cheers > > > >> Steve > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 2/18/07, Bill Zhang <billzhang2006(a)gmail.com > > <mailto:billzhang2006@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > I tried: > > > >> > > > > >> > $a : Person(age > 35 || age < 25, zipCode == 23546 || == 68590) > > > >> > > > > >> > Errors: > > > >> > org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage : unknown:39:30 > > > >> Unexpected token '||' > > > >> > unknown:39:40 mismatched token: > > > >> [@246,1040:1041='<=',<47>,39:40]; > > > >> > expecting type '(' > > > >> > unknown:39:92 mismatched token: > > > >> [@258,1092:1092='<',<46>,39:92]; > > > >> > expecting type '(' > > > >> > > > > >> > I also tried > > > >> > > > > >> > $a : Person(age > 35 | age < 25, zipCode == 23546 | == 68590) > > > >> > > > > >> > Pretty much the same error. > > > >> > > > > >> > Based on the document, "||" is only valid for columns... > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On 2/17/07, Bill Zhang <billzhang2006(a)gmail.com > > <mailto:billzhang2006@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > >> > > Thank you Steve. But I got syntax error using the following. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On 2/17/07, Steven Williams > > <stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au > > <mailto:stevenw@objectconsulting.com.au>> wrote: > > > >> > > > In trunk I think you can use connective constraints: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > $a : Person(age > 35 | < 25, zipCode == 23546 | == 68590) > > > >> > > > then > > > >> > > > $a.setStatus("KT"); > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On 2/18/07, Bill Zhang < billzhang2006(a)gmail.com > > <mailto:billzhang2006@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hello, > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I am a new Drools user trying to convert the > > following simple > > > >> logic > > > >> into > > > >> > > > DRL: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > IF (Person.Age > 35 OR Person.Age < 25) AND > > (Person.ZipCode = > > > >> 23546 > > > >> or > > > >> > > > > Person.ZipCode = 68590) > > > >> > > > > THEN > > > >> > > > > Person.Status = "KT"; > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I found that it is not easy to convert the above > > logic into > > > >> ONE DRL > > > >> rule. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I tried something like this > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > when > > > >> > > > > $a: Person(age>35) or Person (age<25) > > > >> > > > > $b: Person(Zipcode==23456) or Person (ZipCode == 68590) > > > >> > > > > $c: $a and $b > > > >> > > > > Then > > > >> > > > > $c.setStatus("KT") > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > But looks like I can not use > > > >> > > > > $c: $a and $b > > > >> > > > > becaue in Drools, you can only bind variable to > > column, not > > > >> to other > > > >> > > > varaibles. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Please advise how to do this. I would imagine this > > should be > > > >> quite > > > >> > > > > simple, maybe I missed something quite obvious. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I know that I can write custom Java method to do > > this, but if > > > >> I do > > > >> > > > > that, I suppose I lose the power of RETEOO pattern > > matching > > > >> (pattern > > > >> > > > resuing, > > > >> > > > > etc.). So I prefer not to do that. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I also understand I can break the above logic into 4 > > rules > > > >> and that > > > >> > > > > would be quite easy, but our business user is not used to > > > >> think in > > > >> > > > > that way. Also, we have more complex logic than the > > above. So > > > >> what I > > > >> > > > > want is to see if there is a way to convert this > > > >> > > > > kind of logic in ONE DRL rule. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Bill > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > > > > rules-users mailing list > > > >> > > > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -- > > > >> > > > Steven Williams > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Supervising Consultant > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Object Consulting > > > >> > > > Office: 8615 4500 Mob: 0439 898 668 Fax: 8615 4501 > > > >> > > > stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au > > <mailto:stevenw@objectconsulting.com.au> > > > >> > > > www.objectconsulting.com.au > > <http://www.objectconsulting.com.au> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > consulting | development | training | support > > > >> > > > our experience makes the difference > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > > > rules-users mailing list > > > >> > > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> > > > >> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > rules-users mailing list > > > >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> > > > >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Steven Williams > > > >> > > > >> Supervising Consultant > > > >> > > > >> Object Consulting > > > >> Office: 8615 4500 Mob: 0439 898 668 Fax: 8615 4501 > > > >> stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au > > <mailto:stevenw@objectconsulting.com.au> > > > >> www.objectconsulting.com.au <http://www.objectconsulting.com.au> > > > >> > > > >> consulting | development | training | support > > > >> our experience makes the difference > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> rules-users mailing list > > > >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> > > > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > >> > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rules-users mailing list > > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rules-users mailing list > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Steven Williams > > > > Supervising Consultant > > > > Object Consulting > > Office: 8615 4500 Mob: 0439 898 668 Fax: 8615 4501 > > stevenw(a)objectconsulting.com.au <mailto:stevenw@objectconsulting.com.au> > > www.objectconsulting.com.au <http://www.objectconsulting.com.au> > > > > consulting | development | training | support > > our experience makes the difference > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

18 years, 10 months

3
2
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

rules-users February 2007