August 2008 - rules-users - Jboss List Archives

Re: [rules-users] how do RuleBase.lock()/unlock() functions work?

by Marina

Thanks, Mark Actually, the lock you are describing is a low-level lock on the single add/remove operations. I was more interested in locking a set of operations together. I guess the only way to do it is to use a normal Java lock outside of the rule engine. Thanks, Marina ----- Original Message ---- From: Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:36:29 AM Subject: Re: [rules-users] how do RuleBase.lock()/unlock() functions work? you should not need to call .lock() to add or remove packages, the lock is applied automatically when you cann add/remove on the rulebase. Likewise ignrore additions/removeas since lock, it's really not relevant to users. The Lock is a JDK Lock object, so see that for understanding on how a lock work.s Mark Marina wrote: > Sorry to bring it up again - just was wondering if anybody knows the answer to my questions below, or maybe it is already somewhere in the documentation? > > Thanks! > Marina > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Marina <ppine7(a)yahoo.com> > To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org> > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 3:42:01 PM > Subject: [rules-users] how do RuleBase.lock()/unlock() functions work? > > Hello! > > I am researching how to do thread safe update of packages/rules in a rulebase. I noticed that there are lock() and unlock() methods on the RuleBase object, but could not find much documentation on how they could be used. > I am trying to implement the following scenario and was wondering if someone could verify that I am using the lock functionality correctly in this case: > > Thread1: > 1. rulebase.getStatelessSession() > 1.1 rulebase.lock() > 1.2 rulebase.removeRule(rule1) > 1.3 rulebase.removePackage(somePackage) > 1.4 rulebase.addPackage(someCompiledNewPackage) > 1.5 rulebase.unlock() > > Thread2 > 2. rulebase.getStatelessSession() > > Threads 1 and 2 use the same rulebase object. > Quesion 1: What does it mean having the rulebase be locked in Thread1? Does it mean, that if Thread2 is trying to get the session , say, between steps1.2 and 1.3 of the Thread1 , then it will wait until Thread1 released the lock on the rulebase? > > If that's true, that's exactly what I need. > > Question 2: I also see methods rulebase.getAdditionsSinceLock() and getRemovalsSinceLock(). Who will see anything when calling these functions - Thread1 after operation 1.5? before 1.5? > Or Thread2? But, which lock would it mean to Thread2? - it woudl probably not even be aware of any locks being place by other threads?? > > Thanks! > Marina > _______________________________________________ > 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

17 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: [rules-users] how do RuleBase.lock()/unlock() functions work?

by Marina

Sorry to bring it up again - just was wondering if anybody knows the answer to my questions below, or maybe it is already somewhere in the documentation? Thanks! Marina ----- Original Message ---- From: Marina <ppine7(a)yahoo.com> To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 3:42:01 PM Subject: [rules-users] how do RuleBase.lock()/unlock() functions work? Hello! I am researching how to do thread safe update of packages/rules in a rulebase. I noticed that there are lock() and unlock() methods on the RuleBase object, but could not find much documentation on how they could be used. I am trying to implement the following scenario and was wondering if someone could verify that I am using the lock functionality correctly in this case: Thread1: 1. rulebase.getStatelessSession() 1.1 rulebase.lock() 1.2 rulebase.removeRule(rule1) 1.3 rulebase.removePackage(somePackage) 1.4 rulebase.addPackage(someCompiledNewPackage) 1.5 rulebase.unlock() Thread2 2. rulebase.getStatelessSession() Threads 1 and 2 use the same rulebase object. Quesion 1: What does it mean having the rulebase be locked in Thread1? Does it mean, that if Thread2 is trying to get the session , say, between steps1.2 and 1.3 of the Thread1 , then it will wait until Thread1 released the lock on the rulebase? If that's true, that's exactly what I need. Question 2: I also see methods rulebase.getAdditionsSinceLock() and getRemovalsSinceLock(). Who will see anything when calling these functions - Thread1 after operation 1.5? before 1.5? Or Thread2? But, which lock would it mean to Thread2? - it woudl probably not even be aware of any locks being place by other threads?? Thanks! Marina _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

17 years, 10 months

2
1
0 / 0

Intermediate conclusions using strings

by David Boaz

Hi all, I have an idea and I want to get the community feedback. Many times there are many ways to reach an intermediate conclusion. This conclusion can be used to derive higher level conclusions or actions. For example, assuming a credit application has several (or) options to conclude whether a parson is classified as gold member. Then, other rules need this information to determine the credit limit for that member. To note, the Person java class doesn't have a specialized attribute for the classification. The classification is only an internal means to simplify the application logic. To solve that problem, I thought to insert a string conclusion to the WM. Something like: rule "gold member if revenue per month > 1000" when ... then insert("gold member") end rule "gold member if total amount > 1000000" when ... then insert("gold member") end ... rule r100 when String(value=="gold member") then... end * Is it an appropriate approach? * I know it ugly to use the same string literal in various rules. Can we avoid that? * Is there a known mechanism to handle these cases? Thanks, David -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Intermediate-conclusions-using-strings-tp19141834p1... Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

17 years, 10 months

3
2
0 / 0

TypeCasting in BusinessRule

by Vinoth Kumar Somasundaram

Hi All, I have used drools-jbrms.war and drools-guvnor.war. I facing a Problem in both. I have a package called Rating which has the following source. 'Rule 1' is Business-Rule; 'Rule 2' is a Technical-Rule(DRL). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- package rating import com.esspl.ic.dom.CallDetail; import com.esspl.ic.dom.ICConstants; import com.esspl.ic.dom.RateDetail; import java.util.Map; import java.lang.String; global Map rateCache; rule "Rule 1" dialect "mvel" when cd : CallDetail( callType == "VOICE" ) then cd.setRate( cd.getCallDuration() * ((RateDetail) rateCache.get("VOICE")).getRate() ); end rule "Rule 2" when cd : CallDetail( callType == "SMS") then cd.setRate(cd.getCallDuration() * ((RateDetail) rateCache.get("SMS")).getRate() ); End ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------- Rule 2 Compiles fine but Rule 1 does not. It seems there is a Problem in compiling a BusinessRule. The Business Rule Compiler doesn't support Typecasting. Whereas the Technical rule compiler supports type casting. I have to make all my rules as Business Rules. But it doesn't get compiled. Can anyone help me get rid of this problem. Thanks in Advance, Vinoth

17 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

date-effective & date-expires : change execution date

by vdelbart

Hi, I want to change the date in the drools execution (drools 4.0) Example : I have this rule rule "test 1" date-effective "17-sept.-2008" when ... then ... end the current date is "12-oct.-2008" but I want to force the date of the execution to "15-juil.-2008" but just for drools execution. Is it possible to do this ? In that case, How could I ? thanks, Vincent PS : excuse my awful english. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/date-effective---date-expires-%3A-change-execution-... Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

17 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: [rules-users] firing rules again?

by David Cracauer

Marcin Krol-3 wrote: > > 1. When I call session.fireAllRules(), I find I can no longer add new > facts using this session. Strictly speaking, I can do that, but they > there doesn't seem to be any effect re firing rules. > You shouldn't need to do anything to the existing session. I have a situation where I add facts in a loop, calling session.fireAllRules() during each iteration. Have you tried using a working memory logger and the eclipse plugin to see what happens after you add the next set of facts? Its fairly easy to see if there are any activations created by the facts that are inserted. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/firing-rules-again--tp19114453p19118169.html Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

how do RuleBase.lock()/unlock() functions work?

by Marina

Hello! I am researching how to do thread safe update of packages/rules in a rulebase. I noticed that there are lock() and unlock() methods on the RuleBase object, but could not find much documentation on how they could be used. I am trying to implement the following scenario and was wondering if someone could verify that I am using the lock functionality correctly in this case: Thread1: 1. rulebase.getStatelessSession() 1.1 rulebase.lock() 1.2 rulebase.removeRule(rule1) 1.3 rulebase.removePackage(somePackage) 1.4 rulebase.addPackage(someCompiledNewPackage) 1.5 rulebase.unlock() Thread2 2. rulebase.getStatelessSession() Threads 1 and 2 use the same rulebase object. Quesion 1: What does it mean having the rulebase be locked in Thread1? Does it mean, that if Thread2 is trying to get the session , say, between steps1.2 and 1.3 of the Thread1 , then it will wait until Thread1 released the lock on the rulebase? If that's true, that's exactly what I need. Question 2: I also see methods rulebase.getAdditionsSinceLock() and getRemovalsSinceLock(). Who will see anything when calling these functions - Thread1 after operation 1.5? before 1.5? Or Thread2? But, which lock would it mean to Thread2? - it woudl probably not even be aware of any locks being place by other threads?? Thanks! Marina

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

firing rules again?

by Marcin Krol

Hello everyone, I have a session to rule base: RuleBase rb = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase(); rb.addPackage( pb.getPackage() ); StatefulSession session = rb.newStatefulSession(); Two questions: 1. When I call session.fireAllRules(), I find I can no longer add new facts using this session. Strictly speaking, I can do that, but they there doesn't seem to be any effect re firing rules. Do I have to declare the new session? Is there some way to add the new facts and rules to the session after fireAllRules has been called? 2. Is there an equivalent of (refresh rule-name) that is implemented in CLIPS? Regards, Marcin

17 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

WARNING: RUNNING IN NON SEAM MODE SINGLE USER MODE - ONLY FOR TESTING AND DEBUGGING !!!!!

by psentosa

Hi all, I've been trying to play around with BRMS for some days now, and I've noticed from the beginning that the error report: (Contexts.java:flushAndDestroyContexts:335) could not discover transaction status keep popping up in the console. Now after doing some search from the forum, there are 2 suggestes solution: 1. add <transaction:no-transaction/> tag in components.xml file which for me (as well as for several other users) cause another chain of errors 2. The solution suggested in http://www.nabble.com/Drools-4.0.4-and-Jboss-4.2.2-GA-td16113554.html#a16... http://www.nabble.com/Drools-4.0.4-and-Jboss-4.2.2-GA-td16113554.html#a16... to comment the filter part. I tried this 2nd solution and unfortunately, instead of the error report, I got the following warning: 16:01:20,312 INFO [STDOUT] DEBUG 18-08 16:01:20,312 (RepositoryServlet.java:getFileManager:62) WARNING: RUNNING IN NON SEAM MODE SINGLE USER MODE - ONLY FOR TESTING AND DEBUGGING !!!!! which keeps coming in the console just like the error does. Can anyone give any idea how to solve this problem? I'm using DROOLS 4.0.7 on JBoss 4.2.2 Thanks for any response! ps -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/WARNING%3A-RUNNING-IN-NON-SEAM-MODE-SINGLE-USER-MOD... Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

17 years, 11 months

1
1
0 / 0

Fire rule only when all the fact objects sent during a specific period match the WHEN part

by ganesh.p

I need to create a rule with following requirements: There is a fact class called SystemInfo which contains idle information of a sytem public class SystemInfo { private double idle; //System idle percentage public void setIdle(double idle) { this.idle = idle; } public double getIdle() { return this.idle; } } The SystemInfo objects are continuously sent to DROOLS (StatelessSession) with 5 second delay. I need to create a rule rule "Start_New_Process_If_System_is_70%_Idle_Continuously_for_60_Seconds" when SystemInfo (idle >= 70) //Idle continuously for 60 seconds then // start new process end I need to fire this rule only if all the 12 SystemInfo objects which are sent with 5 seconds delay for 60 seconds, match the condition "idle >= 70". Even if a single SystemInfo doesn't match this condition then this rule shouldn't be fired. I am using DROOLS 4.0. Please help me in implementing the WHEN condition. Thanks -Ganesh -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Fire-rule-only-when-all-the-fact-objects-sent-durin... Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

17 years, 11 months

2
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 August 2008