October 2008 - rules-users - Jboss List Archives

by Leonardo Figueiredo

Hi, Is it really guaranteed that an higher salience rule will fire before an lower one? Does anyone had any problem with that? The docs says: " The most visible one is "salience" or priority, in which case a user can specify that a certain rule has a higher priority (by giving it a higher number) than other rules. In that case, the higher salience rule will always be preferred" I have to simulate a sort of activation group where the rules in the group can only fire exclusively per object and does not influence firing rules outside the group. I am using salience as part of the solution. Regards, Leo

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

RV: [rules-users] Checking an xml field

by Otaduy del Paso, Zaloa

Does anybody know the answer to my question? I'm not able to solve this issue and don't find any clarifying tutorial either.... Hi, I'm new in drools and I'm having some problems accessing an xml field. I'm using drools with jaxb to treat xml files that follow an specific xsd. I have the following xml (this is just a piece of the xml): <OASIS_TSO_1_0> <EVENT> <EVENT_ID>EVENT_ID_03/10/2008 10:22:36</EVENT_ID> <NODE_ID>00</NODE_ID> <OTHER_EVENT_ID>Incidente UME</OTHER_EVENT_ID> <EVENT_TYPE>POL</EVENT_TYPE> <SOURCE>HUMDED</SOURCE> <SEVERITY>EXTREM</SEVERITY> <CERTAINTY>88</CERTAINTY> <DECL_DATIME>2008-10-03T10:20:47.0000000+02:00</DECL_DATIME> <GEO> <DESCRIPTION/> <POSITION> <LOC_ID>14021</LOC_ID> <COORD> <LAT>37.9811636567434</LAT> <LON>-4.85417587343286</LON> <HEIGHT>0</HEIGHT> </COORD> </POSITION> </GEO> </EVENT> </OASIS_TSO_1_0> I already have a couple of rules working, but they are simple rules, like this one: rule "Rule1" salience 10 when OASISTSO10($e: EVENT) OASISTSO10($e.SEVERITY == "EXTREM") or OASISTSO10($e.SEVERITY == "SEVERE") then action The problem appears when I have to check the LOC_ID field and I don't know how to access to it. I have tried several things but none of them work 1. when OASISTSO10($e: EVENT) OASISTSO10($e.GEO.POSITION.LOCID == "40005") then 2. when OASISTSO10($e: EVENT) OASISTSO10($g: $e.GEO) OASISTSO10($p: $g.POSITION) OASISTSO10($p.LOCID == "40005") Then I have also tried with ($e.GEO.POSITION.DESCRIPTION, just in case the "_" character was the problem. But the same results... I have searched also for examples with xmls but I haven't had luck. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Zaloa _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

16 years, 11 months

6
12
0 / 0

import/upload package

by hongyu lu

Hi, in drl, is there a way to specify whether a rule should go into business rule asset or tech rule asset after import? and what about category info(doesn't look like you can specify that part of info in drl)? thanks Jeff

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

Backward Chaining Support

by Sangrish

Hi this question has been asked previously but it has been answered as "the next major release will have backward chaining". Drools Wiki doesn't mention backward chaining. So, does all of it mean that Drools doesn't have backward chaining as of now? Thanks Siddharth -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Backward-Chaining-Support-tp19868619p19868619.html Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

16 years, 11 months

2
1
0 / 0

different behavior in Eclipse vs. command line

by Charles Binford

This is related to yesterday's post titled "trouble dynamically changing packages of a rulebase". I decided to try and reduce the problem down as much as possible so I started with "Hello World" program automatically created with Eclipse when you create a new Drools Project. I modified the program to do the following additional work: 1. unload the pkg 2. add a second pkg to the same rulebase * (new rule set is same, except is uses the string "So long" instead of "Goodbye") 3. - create new session 4. - add new facts to the new session * (this time I use the word "Welcome" instead of "Hello") 5. - fireall rules When I run within Eclipse, I get: Hello World Goodbye cruel world Goodbye cruel world Welcome World So long cruel world Notice that the Goodbye line comes out twice. The second time is printed when I single step (in the eclipse debugger) over the line ruleBase.addPackage( pkg ); in step 2 above. When I run from the command line I don't get the extra line ("javadr" is just a one line shell script that has all of the drools classpath stuff specified). javadr com/sample/DroolsTest Hello World Goodbye cruel world Welcome World So long cruel world I don't know of this is related to my real issue (see yesterday's post) or not. The similarity is that BOTH BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY when run under Eclipse vs. command line. Here is the portion of the src that shows what I added/modified.... // Now try second set of rules readRule2("/Sample2.drl", "com.sample"); workingMemory = ruleBase.newStatefulSession(); message.setMessage( "Welcome World" ); message.setStatus( Message.HELLO ); workingMemory.insert( message ); workingMemory.fireAllRules(); private static RuleBase readRule2(String file, String remPkgName) throws Exception { //read in the source Reader source = new InputStreamReader( DroolsTest.class.getResourceAsStream( file ) ); PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder(); builder.addPackageFromDrl( source ); Package pkg = builder.getPackage(); if (remPkgName != null) { ruleBase.removePackage(remPkgName); } ruleBase.addPackage( pkg ); return ruleBase; }

16 years, 11 months

1
1
0 / 0

trouble dynamically changing packages of a rulebase

by Charles Binford

I'm using 4.07. Sorry for the long winded post but I was trying to give enough background and code snippets to be useful. The way I'm running data through drools is in a batch mode. As I've gained more experience I see that my app may be better suited for the stateless mode, but for now I'm still running stateful. A "batch" consists of: - loop on array of objects calling session.insert(a, true); // then I save off the factHandle - session.fireAllRules(); - loop on array of objects calling session.retract(factHandle); All has worked fine until I attempted to add the ability to dynamically update a rule package. It worked both under Eclipse, and running just "java -jar myCompiledApp.jar". My application has rules split into two parts. Part A (adm.rules) is static and contains the logic tied directly to the application. Part B (adm.userrules) is the user half of the rules where the application can be customized to fit the user. After adding the logic to dynamically add the user rules all appears to work fine when run in eclipse. BUT when I run outside of eclipse (i.e. java -jar ....) it doesn't work. Only part of my static rules fire. Here is the code snippet that dynamically loads the new package: pkg = pMgr.buildDslPackage(rule_str, dsl_def_file); if (userRulesLoaded) { Package pkgA[] = ruleBase.getPackages(); for (Package p : pkgA) { System.out.println("LOADED: " + p.getName()); } System.out.println("Removing: " + UserXmlRulesToDrls.getUserRulesPackageName()); pMgr.removePackage(ruleBase, UserXmlRulesToDrls.getUserRulesPackageName()); } System.out.println("Adding: " + pkg.getName()); pMgr.addPackage(ruleBase, pkg); pMgr.createSession(ruleBase); userRulesLoaded = true; } pMgr.addPackage, createSession, etc. are small wrappers: public void createSession(RuleBase ruleBase) { if (session != null) { session.dispose(); } session = ruleBase.newStatefulSession(); } public void addPackage(RuleBase ruleBase, Package pkg) throws Exception { ruleBase.addPackage(pkg); } public void removePackage(RuleBase ruleBase, String pkgName) { ruleBase.removePackage(pkgName); } Here are a couple of dummy rules I added in an attempt to debug this. These are from the static "adm.rules" package: rule "testme" when $ar : ActionArchive(); then System.out.println("Archive: " + $ar.getFile().getFullPath()); end rule "testme2" when $f : File(); then System.out.println("File: " + $f.getFullPath()); end I always get the "archive" print (as expected), but never get the "File" print after the first dynamically set of user rules (the first load works, second and subsequent loading of user rules doesn't). My user rules also have a "when" based on File() and it always works as expected. Last, here is some sample output, running the exact same set of input through each time. Each set does two things: 1. load a set of user rules 2. execute a "batch" of a single file bash-3.2# /usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0/bin/java -jar admDrools.jar com.sun.evtl.pe.customerPolicy.adm.rules Adding: com.sun.evtl.pe.customerPolicy.adm.userrules ArchiveRdy: /zp1/fs2/23kd Mask WFC: /zp1/fs2/23kd File: /zp1/fs2/23kd Archive: /zp1/fs2/23kd <<< end of first run, all OK LOADED: com.sun.evtl.pe.customerPolicy.adm.rules LOADED: com.sun.evtl.pe.customerPolicy.adm.userrules Removing: com.sun.evtl.pe.customerPolicy.adm.userrules Adding: com.sun.evtl.pe.customerPolicy.adm.userrules Archive: /zp1/fs2/23kd <<< end of second run, missing "File", "Mask", and "ArchiveRdy" statements LOADED: com.sun.evtl.pe.customerPolicy.adm.rules LOADED: com.sun.evtl.pe.customerPolicy.adm.userrules Removing: com.sun.evtl.pe.customerPolicy.adm.userrules Adding: com.sun.evtl.pe.customerPolicy.adm.userrules Archive: /zp1/fs2/23kd <<< end of third run, again; missing "File", "Mask", and "ArchiveRdy" statements Charles Binford

16 years, 11 months

1
1
0 / 0

JSR94 and compiled packages

by Keller, Kristopher

I know that the JSR94 interface can consume a DRL file but can it start with a precompiled package from BRMS or output of ant compilation? Can we only consume compiled packages with the native drools API (RuleAgent)? My company is exploring replacing Blaze Advisor with the JBOSS Rules engine. We are currently testing with 4.0.7 but would move to an early release of 5.x if we need to. If there is any documentation or another thread that someone could point me to that would be great. Kris Keller Fidelity Information Services 678-455-7184 _____________ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. _____________

16 years, 11 months

2
1
0 / 0

listen to package polling event

by hongyu lu

Hi, is there a way to listen to the package polling event? there are some operations need to happen in our app each time the rule package is refreshed from the server. thanks Jeff

16 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: [rules-users] insertLogical and modifyRetract (drools-solver)

by tim tim

thanks, you are right, that is kind of a solution. but not really what i am looking for. i am using drools-solver, and the "CreatedFact" is an IntConstraintOccurrence, which i do not want to change. maybe i should make the example more specific for my problem. i have a rule, used for the solver: rule "fact1 should be smaller then 1" when $f : UserFact(fact1 >= 1); then // use the value of fact1 to determine the error insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurence("fact1 should be smaller then 1", $f.getFact1(), $f )); end i have a Move that decrements fact1, so that after the move the error should be 1 smaller. but the move is almost never triggered, because the old constraintOccurence is not retracted from memory and the new one added anyway, hence the error is nearly double after the move, as now two constraintOccurences represent the same error. what i could think of is something like this: one rule for the first test: rule "fact1 should be smaller then 1" when $f : UserFact(fact1 >= 1) not IntConstraintOccurence( ruleId == "fact1 should be smaller then 1", constraintType == ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT, causes contains $f) then // use the value of fact1 to determine the error insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurence("fact1 should be smaller then 1", $f.getFact1(), $f )); end and a second rule, when the first rule has already fired before: rule "fact1 should be smaller then 1, old constraint exists" when $f : UserFact(fact1 >= 1); // see if there is already a fact in the $oldConstraint : IntConstraintOccurence( ruleId == "fact1 should be smaller then 1", constraintType == ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT, causes contains $f) then retract($oldConstraint); // manually retract the obsolete fact // use the value of fact1 to determine the error insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurence("fact1 should be smaller then 1",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT, $f.getFact1(), $f )); end this solution seems very verbose for such a common task. and again, i do not understand, why an obsolete fact is not retracted automatically? best, tim On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Gras, Patrick <Patrick.Gras(a)generali.ch>wrote: > Hello, > > If you can change the code for CreatedFact and let it have a reference to > UserFact and change the rule to: > > rule "fact = 1" > when > $f : UserFact(fact1 == 1); > then > insertLogical(new CreatedFact($f)); > end > you will also have to overide equals and hashcode for CreatedFact so that > several CreatedFacts referencing the same UserFact are considered equal... > > But with this solution CreatedFact will always be up to date with the value > of UserFact even without firing the rules and maybe it's not what you > want... > > -Patrick > > -----Message d'origine----- > *De :* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto: > rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org]*De la part de* tim tim > *Envoyé :* mardi, 7. octobre 2008 16:53 > *À :* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > *Objet :* [rules-users] insertLogical and modifyRetract > > Hello, > > I am a bit confused about how insertLogical() supposed to work in drools 5. > > when i have a rule such as: > > rule "fact = 1" > when > $f : UserFact(fact1 == 1); > then > insertLogical(new CreatedFact($f.getFact2())); > end > > now i change $f in such a way, that the rule will fire again. > via > > // build first version > UserFact f = new UserFact(); > f.setFact1(1); > f.setFact2(1); > > memory.insert(f); > memory.fireAllRules(); // <- Rule fires once > > // now i change the memory and fire the rules again > > memory.modifyRetract(f) ; > f.setFact2(100); // <- changing $f, but leaving fact1 as it is. > memory.modifyInsert(f); > > memory.fireAllRules(); // <- Rule fires again > > now the rule should fire again, which it does. > but i end up with two CreatedFact instances in the workingMemory.. > one with the old OtherFact value 1, and one with the new value, 100 > > but i want only the second instance. the one created first is not valid any > more. > i could write an extra rule for retracting the first CreatedFact-fact, but > then i would have > a very tight coupling of the two rules. > > is there a better way? > it seems odd to me, that a consequence of a rule stays in memory, when > there is > a more current version of the rule evocation with the _same_ facts in the > precondition > and a different consequence. > > thanks in advance, tim > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > >

16 years, 11 months

1
1
0 / 0

insertLogical and modifyRetract

by tim tim

Hello, I am a bit confused about how insertLogical() supposed to work in drools 5. when i have a rule such as: rule "fact = 1" when $f : UserFact(fact1 == 1); then insertLogical(new CreatedFact($f.getFact2())); end now i change $f in such a way, that the rule will fire again. via // build first version UserFact f = new UserFact(); f.setFact1(1); f.setFact2(1); memory.insert(f); memory.fireAllRules(); // <- Rule fires once // now i change the memory and fire the rules again memory.modifyRetract(f) ; f.setFact2(100); // <- changing $f, but leaving fact1 as it is. memory.modifyInsert(f); memory.fireAllRules(); // <- Rule fires again now the rule should fire again, which it does. but i end up with two CreatedFact instances in the workingMemory.. one with the old OtherFact value 1, and one with the new value, 100 but i want only the second instance. the one created first is not valid any more. i could write an extra rule for retracting the first CreatedFact-fact, but then i would have a very tight coupling of the two rules. is there a better way? it seems odd to me, that a consequence of a rule stays in memory, when there is a more current version of the rule evocation with the _same_ facts in the precondition and a different consequence. thanks in advance, tim

16 years, 11 months

2
1
0 / 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

rules-users October 2008