2nd CfP RuleML-2007, Springer Confirmed, Submission Deadline Extended to July 20th
by Adrian Paschke
[Apologies if you receive this more than once]
The International RuleML Symposium
on Rule Interchange and Applications (RuleML-2007)
October 25-26, 2007, Orlando, Florida
http://2007.ruleml.org
Dear Colleagues,
Due to numerous requests about conflicting deadlines, and with Springer
as confirmed publisher, online submissions to RuleML-2007 will be
allowed until July 20 (hard deadline):
Abstract submission before July 10, 2007
Paper submission due July 20, 2007
Notification of acceptance August 6, 2007
Final submissions due August 23, 2007
The International RuleML Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications
(RuleML-2007) will take place, October 25-26, 2007, in Orlando, Florida
http://2007.ruleml.org, co-located with The 10th International Business
Rules Forum <http://www.businessrulesforum.com>. RuleML-2007 is devoted
to practical distributed rule technologies and rule-based applications
which need language standards for rules operating in the context of,
e.g., the Semantic Web, Web 2.0/3.0, Intelligent Multi-Agent Systems,
Event-Driven Architectures, Service-Oriented Computing Applications and
Rule-based Enterprise Application Systems. A RuleML-2007 Challenge with
prizes will be organized to demonstrate tools, use cases, and applications.
Call for Papers: http://2007.ruleml.org/cfp.pdf
Highlights:
- Accepted papers will be published as Springer LNCS proceedings
- 2 Keynote speakers; Confirmed Keynote by Jürgen Angele (Ontoprise):
"Rule-based Development Support in the Automotive Industry"
- In cooperation with ECCAI (confirmend) and IEEE Computer TCAAS
- Selection of revised papers will be resubmitted to a special journal issue
- Best Paper Award
- Prestigious prizes will be awarded to the first two best applications
of the Challenge
- Panel by world-class scientists and practitioners, featuring topics on
event and rule-based computing and industry success stories
Updates:
1) Modified Challenge Requirements:
"Submissions to the RuleML Challenge 2007 consist of a demo paper of 3-5
pages, describing the demo show case, and a link to more information
about the demo/show case, e.g. a project site, an online demonstration,
a presentation about the demonstration, or a download site for the
demonstration.
The show case should demonstrate the use of rules of various kinds in
interesting and practically relevant ways, preferably (but not
necessarily) embedded into a Web-based or distributed environment."
More information regarding submissions can be found in the RuleML-2007
web site:
http://2007.ruleml.org/index-Dateien/Page787.htm
2) Enhanced Topics:
- Rules in Web 2.0 and Web 3.0
- Rules in Semantic Web Technologies
- Rules in Web Intelligence Research
We invite submissions of full, short and demo papers related (but not
limited) to one or more of the topics listed at:
http://2007.ruleml.org/index-Dateien/Page431.htm
3) All papers and demos will be carefully peer-reviewed by 3 PC
members of the Program Committee:
http://2007.ruleml.org/index-Dateien/Page508.htm
Sincerely,
General Chair
Said Tabet, Inferware Corp.
stabet AT ruleml.org
Program Co-Chairs
Adrian Paschke, Technical University Munich, Germany
paschke AT in.tum.de
Yevgen Biletskiy, University of New Brunswick, Canada
biletski AT unb.ca
Challenge Co-Chairs
Alexander Kozlenkov, Betfair Ltd., London, UK
alex.kozlenkov AT betfair.com
Ralph Hodgson, TopQuadrant, Inc., Mountain View, USA
rhodgson AT topquadrant.com
Panel Chair
John Hall, Model Systems, UK
john.hall AT modelsys.com
Publicity Chair
Suzette Stoutenburg, MITRE Corporation, USA
suzette AT mitre.org
18 years, 10 months
Documentation of 4.0.0 MR3
by Natraj Gudla
Hi,
I see the online MR3 documentation for 4.0.0 looks similar to that of 3.0.6.
I dont find, any details on the rule flows and any new things.please help??
Thanks
Natraj Gudla.
18 years, 10 months
Efficiency Question
by Simon French
Hi.
I'm wondering if somebody could tell me if what I'm doing is efficient or
not.
Having written a number of rules we found that we were duplicating a number
of constants, and if any of the "constants" (we later found out they are
more like variants !!) it meant changing them in a number of places.
What we came up with was to use a spreadsheet with three columns, variable
name, a string value and a numeric value. We then used a little VB to
produce an XML document, and via JAXB load the XML in as Java classes and
assert the data into working memory.
So we have a Class something like :-
public class ConstantValueType {
protected String varName;
protected int intVal;
protected String stringVal;
...........
}
Then within our rules we doing
rule "Exclusions 1"
salience 500
when
ConstantValueType(varName == "MaxProposerAge",$maxProposerAge : intVal
)
$res : ResultData(schemeCode == "TE")
$pr : Proposer($age : age > $maxProposerAge )
then
System.out.println("**** Not flexing because proposer age >=
"+($maxProposerAge+1));
retract($res);
end
What I'm wondering is because I'm doing a ?join? pr : Proposer($age :
age > $maxProposerAge ) presumably this is similar to an eval and as such
the rules engine is having to evaluate this each time rather than having the
information ready to hand each time the rule is evaluated?
If this is inefficient is there another way of achieving this? We're
currently working with 3.0.6
As it stands the rules engine is flying, but it would be nice to know if
what I'm doing could be done better
Thanks in advance
Simon
18 years, 10 months
Re: [rules-dev] Re: [rules-users] Problem with update(fact)
by Felipe Piccolini
...Always change the huge signature... sorry...
Edson,
I tried what you said, but it is not the same... cant get the
expected result.
With agenda-group the can control de flow, but outside the rules
(auto-focus didnt work well),
and before that I prefer to use rule-flow-group (and use the GUI).
What Im trying to get is a set of rules that dont depend on flows or
sequences to work together, because
this set of rules can be large and I dont want the business user have
to check all rules to know how to write
the next rule... they must be writen in an independent way, but work
together...
lock-on-active didnt work either to get that result, because when I
use it stops activations, so the update(fact) actually
has no effect on other rules... I need to put wm.setFocus
("group1");wm.setFocus("group2");..etc. at the java code...
I dont want to do that...
Maybe you can help me...
an example will be this...(pseudo code)
rule "base vacation days"
when
e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 1)
then
e.setVacationDays(10);
update(e);
end
rule "seniors extra vacation days"
when
e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 4, vd: vacationDays)
then
e.setVacationDays(vd+2);
update(e);
end
rule "old-employee extra vacation days"
when
e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 10, vd: vacationDays)
then
e.setVacationDays(vd+4);
update(e);
end
....and so on....
So I need the business ppl write this rules without knowing the rest
of the rules... I think this is
the idea of having a rule-system...
Thanks.
On 03-07-2007, at 16:40, Edson Tirelli wrote:
>
> Felipe,
>
> Thanks. I'm working on it.
>
> BTW, I forgot to mention, what you are doing to control rules is
> a not a good way to do it. You should try agenda-group+lock-on-
> active rule attributes instead.
> Look at the conway's game of life as an example, and maybe help
> us document the feature... :)
>
> []s
> Edson
>
> 2007/7/3, Felipe Piccolini < felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl>:
> Edson,
>
> Thanks for the reply... it is nasty...
>
> Jira created...
> http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-966
>
> Thanks
>
> PD: duplicated email because I forgot to cut the huge-company-
> signature... :)
>
> On 03-07-2007, at 14:18, Edson Tirelli wrote:
>
>>
>> Felipe,
>>
>> Ok, this is a nasty damn bug. :(
>>
>> I'm working on a solution for it right now. May I ask you
>> please to open a JIRA for it and attach your code bellow?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Edson
>>
>> 2007/7/3, Felipe Piccolini < felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl>:
>> I know I already asked this in a previous email, but no answer and
>> diferent subject... so I'll ask again
>>
>> I have an issue using update in 2 rules that update the same
>> object... a loop is created even when I try to
>> avoid the loop adding an extra condition to each rule... Im
>> inserting an ArrayList as a fact too, so I can check
>> the extra condition...
>>
>> Can anyone tell me how to fix this?
>>
>> Consider this:
>> //-------RULES-----------------------------
>> package cl.bluesoft.test
>>
>> #list any import classes here.
>> import java.util.List
>> import java.util.ArrayList
>>
>> import cl.bluesoft.test.rules.Fact
>>
>> #declare any global variables here
>>
>> rule "test update A"
>> salience 699
>> no-loop
>> when
>> $f : Fact($n: number > 0)
>> $list: ArrayList( this excludes "key1" )
>> then
>> System.out.println( "A-fact number1:"+$f.getNumber()+ " list
>> 1:"+$list);
>> $list.add( "key1" );
>> $f.setNumber($n + 1);
>> update ($f);
>> update ($list);
>> System.out.println("A-fact number2:" +$f.getNumber()+" list
>> 2:" +$list);
>> end
>>
>>
>> rule "test update B"
>> salience 699
>> no-loop
>> when
>> $f : Fact($n: number > 1)
>> $list: ArrayList( this excludes "key2" )
>> then
>> System.out.println( "B-fact number1:" +$f.getNumber()+" list
>> 1:" +$list);
>> $list.add("key2" );
>> $f.setNumber($n + 1);
>> update ($f);
>> update ($list);
>> System.out.println("B-fact number2:" +$f.getNumber()+ " list
>> 2:"+$list);
>> end
>>
>> //-------FACT-----------------------------
>> public class Fact implements Serializable {
>> private static final long serialVersionUID = 331627137981862975L;
>>
>> private int number;
>>
>> public Fact(int number){
>> this.number = number;
>> }
>>
>> public Fact(){
>> this(0);
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> * @return the number
>> */
>> public int getNumber() {
>> return number;
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> * @param number the number to set
>> */
>> public void setNumber(int number) {
>> this.number = number;
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> //------TEST---------
>> public class TestUpdateFact implements Serializable {
>>
>> private static final long serialVersionUID = -574789596641083743L;
>>
>> /**
>> * @param args
>> */
>> public static void main(String[] args) {
>> RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
>> Package pkg = builder.getPackage();
>> ....
>> WorkingMemory session = ruleBase.getStatefulSession();
>> ...etc etc...
>>
>> List list = new ArrayList();
>>
>> Fact fact1 = new Fact(1);
>>
>> session.fireAllRules();
>>
>> ....etc, etc...
>>
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> //--------OUTPUT------------
>> A-fact number1:1 list 1:[]
>> A-fact number2:2 list 2:[key1]
>> B-fact number1:2 list 1:[key1]
>> B-fact number2:3 list 2:[key1, key2]
>> A-fact number1:3 list 1:[key1, key2]
>> A-fact number2:4 list 2:[key1, key2, key1]
>> B-fact number1:4 list 1:[key1, key2, key1]
>> B-fact number2:5 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2]
>> A-fact number1:5 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2]
>> A-fact number2:6 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
>> B-fact number1:6 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
>> B-fact number2:7 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2]
>> A-fact number1:7 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2]
>> A-fact number2:8 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
>> B-fact number1:8 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
>>
>> .... for ever.....
>>
>> So I have a loop... only when I use update and both rules...
>> condition about the
>> list not containing "key1" and "key2" seems not properly
>> chequed... I dont know...
>>
>> Can somebody help me? Am I missing something here?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Felipe Piccolini M.
>> felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 3529-6000
>> Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
>> 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
>
>
> Felipe Piccolini M.
> felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> Office: +55 11 3529-6000
> Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
Felipe Piccolini M.
felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl
18 years, 10 months
Another Efficiency Question
by David Nogueras
Hi
i´m doing Efficiency tests: Manners 16-32-64-128-256 and 512 and i´m seing
that it has decreased, is it relationship with the change workingmemory -
statefullsession??
Thanks
18 years, 10 months
Re: [rules-dev] Re: [rules-users] Problem with update(fact)
by Felipe Piccolini
Edson,
I tried what you said, but it is not the same... cant get the
expected result.
With agenda-group the can control de flow, but outside the rules
(auto-focus didnt work well),
and before that I prefer to use rule-flow-group (and use the GUI).
What Im trying to get is a set of rules that dont depend on flows or
sequences to work together, because
this set of rules can be large and I dont want the business user have
to check all rules to know how to write
the next rule... they must be writen in an independent way, but work
together...
lock-on-active didnt work either to get that result, because when I
use it stops activations, so the update(fact) actually
has no effect on other rules... I need to put wm.setFocus
("group1");wm.setFocus("group2");..etc. at the java code...
I dont want to do that...
Maybe you can help me...
an example will be this...(pseudo code)
rule "base vacation days"
when
e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 1)
then
e.setVacationDays(10);
update(e);
end
rule "seniors extra vacation days"
when
e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 4, vd: vacationDays)
then
e.setVacationDays(vd+2);
update(e);
end
rule "old-employee extra vacation days"
when
e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 10, vd: vacationDays)
then
e.setVacationDays(vd+4);
update(e);
end
....and so on....
So I need the business ppl write this rules without knowing the rest
of the rules... I think this is
the idea of having a rule-system...
Thanks.
On 03-07-2007, at 16:40, Edson Tirelli wrote:
>
> Felipe,
>
> Thanks. I'm working on it.
>
> BTW, I forgot to mention, what you are doing to control rules is
> a not a good way to do it. You should try agenda-group+lock-on-
> active rule attributes instead.
> Look at the conway's game of life as an example, and maybe help
> us document the feature... :)
>
> []s
> Edson
>
> 2007/7/3, Felipe Piccolini < felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl>:
> Edson,
>
> Thanks for the reply... it is nasty...
>
> Jira created...
> http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-966
>
> Thanks
>
> PD: duplicated email because I forgot to cut the huge-company-
> signature... :)
>
> On 03-07-2007, at 14:18, Edson Tirelli wrote:
>
>>
>> Felipe,
>>
>> Ok, this is a nasty damn bug. :(
>>
>> I'm working on a solution for it right now. May I ask you
>> please to open a JIRA for it and attach your code bellow?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Edson
>>
>> 2007/7/3, Felipe Piccolini < felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl>:
>> I know I already asked this in a previous email, but no answer and
>> diferent subject... so I'll ask again
>>
>> I have an issue using update in 2 rules that update the same
>> object... a loop is created even when I try to
>> avoid the loop adding an extra condition to each rule... Im
>> inserting an ArrayList as a fact too, so I can check
>> the extra condition...
>>
>> Can anyone tell me how to fix this?
>>
>> Consider this:
>> //-------RULES-----------------------------
>> package cl.bluesoft.test
>>
>> #list any import classes here.
>> import java.util.List
>> import java.util.ArrayList
>>
>> import cl.bluesoft.test.rules.Fact
>>
>> #declare any global variables here
>>
>> rule "test update A"
>> salience 699
>> no-loop
>> when
>> $f : Fact($n: number > 0)
>> $list: ArrayList( this excludes "key1" )
>> then
>> System.out.println( "A-fact number1:"+$f.getNumber()+ " list
>> 1:"+$list);
>> $list.add( "key1" );
>> $f.setNumber($n + 1);
>> update ($f);
>> update ($list);
>> System.out.println("A-fact number2:" +$f.getNumber()+" list
>> 2:" +$list);
>> end
>>
>>
>> rule "test update B"
>> salience 699
>> no-loop
>> when
>> $f : Fact($n: number > 1)
>> $list: ArrayList( this excludes "key2" )
>> then
>> System.out.println( "B-fact number1:" +$f.getNumber()+" list
>> 1:" +$list);
>> $list.add("key2" );
>> $f.setNumber($n + 1);
>> update ($f);
>> update ($list);
>> System.out.println("B-fact number2:" +$f.getNumber()+ " list
>> 2:"+$list);
>> end
>>
>> //-------FACT-----------------------------
>> public class Fact implements Serializable {
>> private static final long serialVersionUID = 331627137981862975L;
>>
>> private int number;
>>
>> public Fact(int number){
>> this.number = number;
>> }
>>
>> public Fact(){
>> this(0);
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> * @return the number
>> */
>> public int getNumber() {
>> return number;
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> * @param number the number to set
>> */
>> public void setNumber(int number) {
>> this.number = number;
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> //------TEST---------
>> public class TestUpdateFact implements Serializable {
>>
>> private static final long serialVersionUID = -574789596641083743L;
>>
>> /**
>> * @param args
>> */
>> public static void main(String[] args) {
>> RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
>> Package pkg = builder.getPackage();
>> ....
>> WorkingMemory session = ruleBase.getStatefulSession();
>> ...etc etc...
>>
>> List list = new ArrayList();
>>
>> Fact fact1 = new Fact(1);
>>
>> session.fireAllRules();
>>
>> ....etc, etc...
>>
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> //--------OUTPUT------------
>> A-fact number1:1 list 1:[]
>> A-fact number2:2 list 2:[key1]
>> B-fact number1:2 list 1:[key1]
>> B-fact number2:3 list 2:[key1, key2]
>> A-fact number1:3 list 1:[key1, key2]
>> A-fact number2:4 list 2:[key1, key2, key1]
>> B-fact number1:4 list 1:[key1, key2, key1]
>> B-fact number2:5 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2]
>> A-fact number1:5 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2]
>> A-fact number2:6 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
>> B-fact number1:6 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
>> B-fact number2:7 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2]
>> A-fact number1:7 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2]
>> A-fact number2:8 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
>> B-fact number1:8 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
>>
>> .... for ever.....
>>
>> So I have a loop... only when I use update and both rules...
>> condition about the
>> list not containing "key1" and "key2" seems not properly
>> chequed... I dont know...
>>
>> Can somebody help me? Am I missing something here?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Felipe Piccolini M.
>> felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 3529-6000
>> Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
>> 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
>
>
> Felipe Piccolini M.
> felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> Office: +55 11 3529-6000
> Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
Atentamente,
______________________
Felipe Piccolini Marfull
Jefe de Proyectos
Agustina 1141 Piso 8-B
Santiago
Fono +(56 2) 68830837
E-mail felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl

18 years, 10 months
upload rules from a drl archive
by David Nogueras
Hi,
i´d like to know if it´s going to be possible upload a drl file with your
rules and how to integrate jbrms with your "eclipse" rules
thanks, David.
18 years, 10 months
Issues Regarding use " Eval"
by Rajesh_Kumar
Hi all,
I want to use "eval" in my rules, but in rule writing guidelines Mark
has
Written that "Eval is Evil".
I want to compare the values of Hash Map in my when (conditions) part.
1) Will anyone suggest something so that I can compare Hash Map keys in
when part?
2) Does is there any performance related issue related to "eval";
Regards
Rajesh
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
18 years, 10 months
RE: rules-users Digest, Vol 8, Issue 1
by Rajesh_Kumar
hi Mark,
Could you please provide us the reasons , why you have written
"eval is evil" in rule writing guidelines.I want to use it in my rules.
Regards
Rajesh Choudhary.
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of
rules-users-request(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 9:30 PM
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: rules-users Digest, Vol 8, Issue 1
Send rules-users mailing list submissions to
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rules-users-request(a)lists.jboss.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
rules-users-owner(a)lists.jboss.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of rules-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Unexpected token "." in primary - Rule Compilation
Error
(McShiv)
2. Help with MR3 (s erel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: McShiv <rajesh_sachin10(a)yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Unexpected token "." in primary - Rule
Compilation Error
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Message-ID: <11377473.post(a)talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Michael,
What is vanilla DRL? Can you briefly explain about it?
Thanks,
McShiv
Michael Neale wrote:
>
> hmm.. there is a problem with the action of the 2nd rule, so,
converting
> it
> to vanilla DRL:
>
> rule "SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12"
> salience 50
>
> when
> ...
> then
> if(common.getProd() == "{prodCode1}" || common.getPlan() ==
> "{planCode1}"){System.out.println("Error");}
> end
>
> That doesn't look quite right - you are doing == on strings - .equals
> would
> be better). I would try that rule on its own, without a DSL - to see
what
> is
> causing it. Also - why are you doing the if on the RHS? I would get
rid of
> that if at all possible to save confusion later.
>
> On 6/30/07, McShiv <rajesh_sachin10(a)yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>
>>
>> DRL Syntax
>> package com.policy;
>> expander SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan.dsl;
>> #list any import classes here.
>> import com.viking.common.transferbeans.CommonInformation;
>> import com.sentry.common.entitybeans.EntityBean;
>> import com.sentry.common.entitybeans.Selected;
>> import java.util.ArrayList;
>> import java.util.List;
>> #declare any global variables here
>>
>> rule "SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan11"
>> salience 100
>>
>> when
>> The EntityBean Contains Selected List
>> then
>> Assert All The Selected
>> end
>>
>> rule "SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12"
>> salience 50
>>
>> when
>> The Question Code Is "License" And The Selected Value is "Y"
>> then
>> Remove The Product "09" And Plan "CD"
>> end
>>
>> DSL Syntax:
>>
>> [when] The EntityBean Contains Selected List = entity : EntityBean();
>> eval(entity.getSelected() != null);
>> [then] Assert All The Selected = Object[] quoSelList =
entity.getSelected
>> ();
>> for(int i = 0; i < quoSelList.length; i++){ Selected queSel =
>> (Selected)quoSelList[i]; assert(queSel); System.out.println(queSel);
}
>>
>> [when] The Question Code Is "{speCode1}" And The Selected Value is
>> "{speValue1}" = common : CommonInformation();
Selected(stateSpecificCode
>> ==
>> "{speCode1}", stateSpecificValue == "{speValue1}");
>> [then] Remove The Product "{prodCode1}" And Plan "{planCode1}" =
>> if(common.getProd() == "{prodCode1}" || common.getPlan() ==
>> "{planCode1}"){System.out.println("Error");}
>>
>>
>> The Selected Class is an Object Array inside EntityBean Class.
>> CommonInformation is a seperate class. CommonInformation & EntityBean
>> will
>> be available in Working Memory(asserted earlier in java class).
>>
>> I need to remove the Selected Classes in the Object array and assert
into
>> the working memory. Thats what I am doing in the First Rule.
>>
>> In the Second rule I check for some condition and print the error
>> according
>> to the condition.
>> Thanks,
>> McShiv
>>
>> Fernando Meyer Camargo wrote:
>> >
>> > howdy,
>> >
>> > is your package name right? please paste your rule code.
>> >
>> > Fernando Meyer
>> > fmcamargo(a)gmail.com
>> > GPG: 5A6D 3374 B055 A513 9A02 A03B 3DB3 7485 D804 DDFB
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:16 PM, McShiv wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> com.package.FatalSystemException
>> >> at org.drools.rule.Package.checkValidity(Unknown Source)
>> >> at org.drools.reteoo.RuleBaseImpl.addPackage(Unknown Source)
>> >> at
>> >> com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.DroolsExecutor.executeRules
>> >> (DroolsExecutor.java)
>> >> at
>> >>
com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.callRules
>> >> Executor(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:82)
>> >> at
>> >>
com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.rulesExec
>> >> utionprocess(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:65)
>> >> at
>> >> com.sentry.underwriting.ruleprocessor.RulesProcessor.processRules
>> >> (RulesProcessor.java)
>> >> at
>> >> com.sentry.underwriting.test.UnderwritingDemo.main
>> >> (UnderwritingDemo.java:21)
>> >> Caused by: org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage: Rule Compilation
>> >> error File
>> >> com/policy/Rule_SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12_0.java, Line 12, Column
176:
>> >> Unexpected token "." in primary
>> >>
>> >> ... 7 more
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I am using Drools 3.0.6 version.
>> >>
>> >> I got the above message when the drl files are added to the
>> >> RuleBase class.
>> >>
>> >> I debugged the code. The error was thrown when
>> >> ruleBase.addPackage(packageBuilder.getPackage()); line was called
>> >> in the
>> >> DroolsExecutor class.
>> >>
>> >> Can anyone please suggest me any sollution for this problem.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in addvance.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> McShiv.
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected-
>> >> token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compilation-Error-
>> >> tf4002948.html#a11369488
>> >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.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
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected-token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compila
tion-Error-tf4002948.html#a11369670
>> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.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
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected-token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compila
tion-Error-tf4002948.html#a11377473
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 18:36:23 +0300
From: "s erel" <erelsagi(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [rules-users] Help with MR3
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Message-ID:
<1a1500b50707010836t71a04e1cx6b9b5775cda5f780(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello,
I've just started integrating MR3 into my project (I've previously
used 3.06). The
drl compiles and everything seems fine, but during
tests the following exception is thrown for time to time:
java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 17
at org.drools.util.AbstractHashTable$HashTableIterator.next(
AbstractHashTable.java:250)
at org.drools.reteoo.Rete$ObjectTypeConf.buildCache(Rete.java:434)
at
org.drools.reteoo.Rete$ObjectTypeConf.getObjectTypeNodes(Rete.java:425)
at org.drools.reteoo.Rete.assertObject(Rete.java:172)
at
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.assertObject(ReteooRuleBase.java:190)
at
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory$WorkingMemoryReteAssertAction.exec
ute(
ReteooWorkingMemory.java:163)
at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.executeQueuedActions(
AbstractWorkingMemory.java:1135)
at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(
AbstractWorkingMemory.java:781)
at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(
AbstractWorkingMemory.java:584)
at org.drools.jsr94.rules.StatefulRuleSessionImpl.addObject(
StatefulRuleSessionImpl.java:162)
This only happens during high load tests.
Can anyone help me?
Thanks
18 years, 10 months
Class old and new classes
by Gaminda Jayakody
Hi
I found that certain Classes in the old versions of rules has been removed and not define in the new versions as deprecated as java normally does. This results that the old version implementations cant run with new versions of jboss rules without revising the implementation codes. Id like to know the reasons for this type of approach. Thank you.
---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
18 years, 10 months
