Re: [rules-users] Using an OWL Ontology in drools - advice
by Anton Hughes
>
>
> Hi Anton,
> I'm (un)officially in charge of the topic. Right now I have identified the
> following topics/tasks, feel free to ask for more details on any one of
> them:
>
> 1) Use the ontology to create a fact model to write rules with : I'm
> perfecting the tool even now, in a few days the alpha version will be
> available for testing.
> It's meant to be pretty flexible, support many persistency techniques,
> provide convenience methods and will be integrated with the recent
> "traiting" (dynamic typing) technique.
> It makes some (reasonable) assumptions on the ontology, and would need use
> cases and consolidations.
>
> 1b) Once the fact model is there, we'd have to instantiate the individuals
> in the ontology as facts
> 1c) We have a side project to make this compatible with guvnor, to edit
> "semantically constrained" rules.
>
> 2) Use the definitions in the ontology to create classification rules.
> Would
> be "rule-style", in close world assumptions. My feeling is that it would
> create an execution framework for a SPIN-like language (or, if you prefer,
> a
> DRL version of the SPIN framework).
> I haven't started it yet, but could be done in a relatively few days
>
> 3) Use the definitions in the ontology to create a rule-based,
> object-oriented semantic reasoner. A proof of concept for a fuzzy semantic
> reasoner exists, but that definitely is on the TODO list. Help, as always,
> is appreciated :)
> This would be a necessary complement to the fact model, to ensure it's kept
> consistent with the ontology.
>
>
> Hi Davide
Thanks, the work youre doing sounds really exciting and promising!
I would very much like to follow your progress, and, if I can, help out.
What is the best way to follow the progress of this project?
Kind regards,
Anton
14 years, 2 months
Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
by Michael Anstis
Forwarded to drools-user
sent on the move
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Michael Anstis" <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
Date: 17 Feb 2012 21:24
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0
to 5.3Final
To: "jian zhi" <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
I could not set the bound name to the same value as the Fact Type in
"master". There have been a lot of changeable for 5.4 so I assume it has
been fixed.
The other issue is a known regression affecting all asset editors. Jervis
Liu is looking into it. The workaround us to close and reopen.
sent on the move
On 17 Feb 2012 21:15, "jian zhi" <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sorry, the error was Unable to save this asset, as it has been recently
> updated by [xxx].
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
> *To:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2012 4:08 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools
> 5.0 to 5.3Final
>
> Thanks for the update. I wa able to set the bound name same as the fact
> type on RHS in both R5.3Final and R5.3.2 snapshort.
> I also have problem to save the decision table if I open a decision
> table(web guided editor), edit it, save it(successful), then edit it
> again(on the same table) and save it. I got "No able to save DT after make
> a change, save it, then make another change.". It happened in R5.3.2
> snapshort. Is this the new feature added? I have no problem to edit, save,
> edit again and save in R5.3Final.
>
> Thanks,
> Jian
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
> *To:* jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2012 9:32 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools
> 5.0 to 5.3Final
>
> I just tried setting the bound name to be the same as the Fact type in
> both the LHS and RHS with "master" and it is not allowed.
>
> It sounds like your export has issues introduced as a result of bugs in
> 5.0.x. This is over 2 years old and you're unlikely to find much community
> support now.
>
> I believe the workaround you have identified is the only course of action.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Mike
>
> On 16 February 2012 18:59, jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks a lot for the response. There are some confusions. Although I had
> the bound name same as the fact type in 5.0.1 I still got fact0 in the rule
> source, which in the code you showed me it should not happen.
>
> There is a bug reported in Jira
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2843. The workaround was
> provided, however manually fixing the problem for each decision table is
> not an good option if we have a lot of decision tables. I guess the
> workaround for us is to remove the bound name from the exported repository
> before I import it back to 5.3.
>
> The linked issue (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/GUVNOR-171, Don't allow
> that 'Fact Name' has the same name as the 'Fact Type' or an empty value)
> indicated that the feature was added in drools-5.0.0CR1, however in 5.0.1 I
> still entered the fact name same as the fact type. The repository I sent
> you was created by 5.0.1. Also the new feature only exists in LHS in 5.3.
> On the RHS you still can enter the bound name same as the fact type.
>
> Again, thanks a lot for your help,
> Jian
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
> *To:* jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:22 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools
> 5.0 to 5.3Final
>
> This issue is not related to the migration from 5.0 to 5.3.
>
> The repository export XML contains the following:-
>
> <actionCols>
> <insert-fact-column>
> <width>-1</width>
> <hideColumn>false</hideColumn>
> <header>SetEligible</header>
> <factType>RuleEligibilityResult</factType>
> * <boundName>RuleEligibilityResult</boundName>*
> <factField>eligible</factField>
> <type>Boolean</type>
> <valueList>,true,false</valueList>
> </insert-fact-column>
> </actionCols>
>
> The name of the bound fact is "RuleEligibilityResult" which is what you
> are seeing in 5.3.
>
> Furthermore the code in BRDRLPersistence (that creates the DRL) remains
> the same in both 5.0 and 5.3:-
>
> if (action.getBoundName()==null) {
> generateSetMethodCalls("fact" + idx, action.fieldValues);
> } else {
> generateSetMethodCalls(action.getBoundName(), action.fieldValues);
> }
>
> "fact0" would only be created if the column does not have a bound name
> which is not the case in the repository export you provide.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Mike
>
> On 15 February 2012 22:00, jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The repository is attached. The sources are listed below. On RHS the fact
> name was fact0 in 5.0, however it's RuleEligibilityResult(the fact name is
> same as the fact type) in 5.3.
>
> Source in Drools 5.0:
> then
> RuleEligibilityResult fact0 = new RuleEligibilityResult();
> fact0.setEligible( true );
> insert(fact0 );
> end
>
> Source in Drools 5.3
> then 9. | RuleEligibilityResult RuleEligibilityResult = new
> RuleEligibilityResult(); 10. | RuleEligibilityResult.setEligible(
> true ); 11. | insert(RuleEligibilityResult ); 12. | end
>
> Thanks,
> Jian
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
> *To:* jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:49 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools
> 5.0 to 5.3Final
>
> Can you give some more information?
>
> This doesn't sound like it relates to the decision table but Drools
> Expert's handling of declared fact types.
>
> Can you provide another repository export demonstrating the problem?
>
> On 14 February 2012 20:27, jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> As long as the result of the evaluation is same we are fine with it.
>
> One more question regarding to the data migration. In Drools 5.0 there is
> no restriction between the fact type and name so the fact name could be
> same as the fact type. After we migrated the data to 5.3 we got the IllegalArgumentException:
> object is not an instance of declaring class. Is it possible to fix the
> problem by converting the fact name to the 'Fact Type' with first character
> in lowercase during importing so the data is backward compatible?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Jian
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
> *To:* jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>; Rules Users List <
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2012 3:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools
> 5.0 to 5.3Final
>
> This is fine.
>
> 5.2 onwards groups columns for the same pattern together - if you looked
> at the DRL fo 5.0 you'd have seen the columns are effectively grouped
> together too.
>
> For example; given the following 5.0 configuration (taken from what you
> describe you have done):-
>
> Pattern $a : Column A - Condition 1
> Pattern $b : Column B - Condition 1
> Pattern $c : Column C - Condition 1
> Pattern $d : Column D - Condition 1
> Pattern $a : Column E - Condition 2
> Pattern $b : Column F - Condition 2
>
> 5.0 DRL
>
> $a : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
> $b : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
> $c : Pattern( Condition 1 )
> $d : Pattern( Condition 1 )
>
> Importing this into 5.3 groups the columns:-
>
> Pattern $a : Column A - Condition 1
> Pattern $a : Column B - Condition 2
> Pattern $b : Column C - Condition 1
> Pattern $b : Column D - Condition 2
> Pattern $c : Column E - Condition 1
> Pattern $d : Column F - Condition 1
>
> 5.2 DRL
>
> $a : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
> $b : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
> $c : Pattern( Condition 1 )
> $d : Pattern( Condition 1 )
>
> Furthermore, at the request of the community, the behavior of "default
> values" changed so that the are only the default value for a new row (5.2
> onwards) and not the value used for an empty cell (5.0). I know this has
> caused some re-work for people migrating a legacy decision table from 5.0
> to 5.2 but since the impact, to date, has been small I do not plan on
> making any programmatic changes.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Mike
>
> 2012/2/13 jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the detail explanation.
>
> I found that the order of the conditions were changed again after I added
> two more conditions to the same package I used last time.
> I added default value to the first two conditions. Added the fifth
> condition by using the binding name created for the first condition.Add the
> sixth condition by using the binding name created for the second condition.
> After I import the data to 5.3 the fifth condition became the second and
> the sixth condition became the fourth. Also the default value for the first
> and second conditions are not listed in the rule source in 5.3. Could you
> please take a look? I attach the modified repository in the email.
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Jian
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
> *To:* drools-user <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2012 12:59 PM
> *Subject:* [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0
> to 5.3Final
>
> I suspect ConsumerAccountAssociationFact.hasAnyAccountClosed is a boolean.
>
> In 5.3 we handle data-types better than 5.0, so String, Numbers, Dates are
> Booleans have editors appropriate for the data-type and the resulting DRL
> only escapes values with quotation marks where needed (i.e. Strings and
> Dates). Boolean's in the table are now shown as Checkboxes. If the value is
> "true" it is ticked, if the value is "false" the checkbox is not ticked.
>
> I don't therefore believe there is any problem.
>
> On 10 February 2012 16:35, jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the quick response. I downloaded the war and tested the fix.
> The order of the conditions are correct now. There is still a small problem
> in the last condition.
>
> In Drools 5.0 the source is consumerAccount :
> ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == "false" ).
> In Drools 5.3 the source is consumerAccount :
> ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == false ). It displays
> a square check box in the cell.
>
> Could you please take a look?
> Thanks,
> Jian
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
> *To:* jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>; Rules Users List <
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:55 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to
> 5.3Final
>
> You can get a build containing the fix from Nexus:
>
>
> https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/index.html#nexus-search;gav~org.drools...
>
> 2012/2/8 jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
>
> Mike,
>
> Is it possible to release a patch of 5.3?
>
> Thanks,
> Jian
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
> *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:17 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to
> 5.3Final
>
> The problem has existed since 5.2 and would potentially affect loading any
> earlier version.
> Prior to 5.2 the object model used by the guided decision table did not
> hold a Pattern to which individual condition columns are bound.
> The conversion code groups individual condition columns into the
> appropriate group and moves the underlying column data accordingly (as
> there was no guarantee columns with the same bound name were consecutive).
> There was a problem with the creation and insertion of the new Pattern
> objects that relied upon the order of entries in a HashMap being
> consistent. This has now changed.
> I know others have been using the new guided decision table with old
> repositories without problem and our unit tests did not detect the problem
> either.
> AFAIK this is the first report of any such issue since the release of
> 5.2's betas, however I would be wrong to say there is no risk.
> sent on the move
> On 8 Feb 2012 01:22, "vadlam" <sreeram.vadlamudi(a)wellsfargo.com> wrote:
>
> does this issue happen for any previous version of Guvnor data such as 5.0
> or 5.1 or 5.2 exported and imported into a Guvnor 5.3 repository ?
>
> does this mean, we cannot rely on 5.3.0 version of Guvnor code when
> migrating data from a previous version and should rather apply the fix ?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Migrating-repository-data-f...
> Sent from the Drools: User forum 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
14 years, 2 months
Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
by jian zhi
Mike,
Thanks a lot for the response. There are some confusions. Although I had the bound name same as the fact type in 5.0.1 I still got fact0 in the rule source, which in the code you showed me it should not happen.
There is a bug reported in Jira https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2843. The workaround was provided, however manually fixing the problem for each decision table is not an good option if we have a lot of decision tables. I guess the workaround for us is to remove the bound name from the exported repository before I import it back to 5.3.
The linked issue (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/GUVNOR-171,Don't allow that 'Fact Name' has the same name as the 'Fact
Type' or an empty value) indicated that the feature was added in drools-5.0.0CR1, however in 5.0.1 I still entered the fact name same as the fact type. The repository I sent you was created by 5.0.1. Also the new feature only exists in LHS in 5.3. On the RHS you still can enter the bound name same as the fact type.
Again, thanks a lot for your help,
Jian
________________________________
From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
To: jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
This issue is not related to the migration from 5.0 to 5.3.
The repository export XML contains the following:-
<actionCols>
<insert-fact-column>
<width>-1</width>
<hideColumn>false</hideColumn>
<header>SetEligible</header>
<factType>RuleEligibilityResult</factType>
<boundName>RuleEligibilityResult</boundName>
<factField>eligible</factField>
<type>Boolean</type>
<valueList>,true,false</valueList>
</insert-fact-column>
</actionCols>
The name of the bound fact is "RuleEligibilityResult" which is what you are seeing in 5.3.
Furthermore the code in BRDRLPersistence (that creates the DRL) remains the same in both 5.0 and 5.3:-
if (action.getBoundName()==null) {
generateSetMethodCalls("fact" + idx, action.fieldValues);
} else {
generateSetMethodCalls(action.getBoundName(), action.fieldValues);
}
"fact0" would only be created if the column does not have a bound name which is not the case in the repository export you provide.
With kind regards,
Mike
On 15 February 2012 22:00, jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
The repository is attached. The sources are listed below. On RHS the fact
name was fact0 in 5.0, however it's RuleEligibilityResult(the fact name
is same as the fact type) in 5.3.
>
>
>Source in Drools 5.0:
> then
> RuleEligibilityResult fact0 = new RuleEligibilityResult();
> fact0.setEligible( true );
> insert(fact0 );
>end
>
>
>Source in Drools 5.3
> then
>9. | RuleEligibilityResult RuleEligibilityResult = new
RuleEligibilityResult();
>10. | RuleEligibilityResult.setEligible( true );
>11. | insert(RuleEligibilityResult );
>12. | end
>
>
>Thanks,
>Jian
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
>To: jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:49 PM
>
>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
>
>
>
>Can you give some more information?
>
>This doesn't sound like it relates to the decision table but Drools Expert's handling of declared fact types.
>
>Can you provide another repository export demonstrating the problem?
>
>
>On 14 February 2012 20:27, jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>As long as the result of the evaluationis same we are fine with it.
>>
>>
>>One more question regarding to the data migration. In Drools 5.0 there is no restriction between the fact type and name so the fact name could be same as the fact type. After we migrated the data to 5.3 we got the IllegalArgumentException: object is not an instance of declaring class. Is it possible to fix the problem by converting the fact name to the 'Fact Type' with first character in lowercase during importing so the data is backward compatible?
>>
>>
>>Thanks a lot,
>>Jian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
>>To: jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>; Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:53 PM
>>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
>>
>>
>>
>>This is fine.
>>
>>5.2 onwards groups columns for the same pattern together - if you looked at the DRL fo 5.0 you'd have seen the columns are effectively grouped together too.
>>
>>For example; given the following 5.0 configuration (taken from what you describe you have done):-
>>
>>Pattern $a : Column A - Condition 1
>>Pattern $b : Column B - Condition 1
>>Pattern $c : Column C - Condition 1
>>Pattern $d : Column D - Condition 1
>>Pattern $a : Column E - Condition 2
>>Pattern $b : Column F - Condition 2
>>
>>5.0 DRL
>>
>>$a : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
>>$b : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
>>$c : Pattern( Condition 1 )
>>$d : Pattern( Condition 1 )
>>
>>Importing this into 5.3 groups the columns:-
>>
>>Pattern $a : Column A - Condition 1
>>Pattern $a : Column B - Condition 2
>>Pattern $b : Column C - Condition 1
>>Pattern $b : Column D - Condition 2
>>Pattern $c : Column E - Condition 1
>>Pattern $d : Column F - Condition 1
>>
>>5.2 DRL
>>
>>$a : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
>>$b : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
>>$c : Pattern( Condition 1 )
>>$d : Pattern( Condition 1 )
>>
>>Furthermore, at the request of the community, the behavior of "default values" changed so that the are only the default value for a new row (5.2 onwards) and not the value used for an empty cell (5.0). I know this has caused some re-work for people migrating a legacy decision table from 5.0 to 5.2 but since the impact, to date, has been small I do not plan on making any programmatic changes.
>>
>>With kind regards,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>2012/2/13 jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
>>
>>Mike,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for the detail explanation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I found that the order of the conditions were changed again after I added two more conditions to the same package I used last time.
>>>I added default value to the first two conditions. Added the fifth condition by using the binding name created for the first condition.Add the sixth condition by using the binding name created for the second condition. After I import the data to 5.3 the fifth condition became the second and the sixth
condition became the fourth. Also the default value for the first and second conditions are not listed in the rule source in 5.3. Could you please take a look? I attach the modified repository in the email.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks a lot,
>>>Jian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
>>>To: drools-user <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>>Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 12:59 PM
>>>Subject: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I suspect ConsumerAccountAssociationFact.hasAnyAccountClosed is a boolean.
>>>
>>>
>>>In 5.3 we handle data-types better than 5.0, so String, Numbers, Dates are Booleans have editors appropriate for the data-type and the resulting DRL only escapes values with quotation marks where needed (i.e. Strings and Dates). Boolean's in the table are now shown as Checkboxes. If the value is "true" it is ticked, if the value is "false" the checkbox is not ticked.
>>>
>>>I don't therefore believe there is any problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 10 February 2012 16:35, jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Mike,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the quick response. I downloaded the war and tested the fix. The order of the conditions are correct now. There is still a small problem in the last condition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In Drools 5.0 the source is consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == "false" ).
>>>>In Drools 5.3 the source is consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == false ). It displays a square check box in the cell.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Could you please take a look?
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Jian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>________________________________
>>>> From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
>>>>To: jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>; Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>>>Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:55 AM
>>>>
>>>>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You can get a build containing the fix from Nexus:
>>>>
>>>>https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/index.html#nexus-search;gav~org.drools...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>2012/2/8 jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>>Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Is it possible to release a patch of 5.3?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Jian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>________________________________
>>>>> From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:17 AM
>>>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem has existed since 5.2 and would potentially affect loading any earlier version.
>>>>>Prior to 5.2 the object model used by the guided decision table did not hold a Pattern to which individual condition columns are bound.
>>>>>The conversion code groups individual condition columns into the appropriate group and moves the underlying column data accordingly (as there was no guarantee columns with the same bound name were consecutive).
>>>>>There was a problem with the creation and insertion of the new Pattern objects that relied upon the order of entries in a HashMap being consistent. This has now changed.
>>>>>I know others have been using the new guided decision table with old repositories without problem and our unit tests did not detect the problem either.
>>>>>AFAIK this is the first report of any such issue since the release of 5.2's betas, however I would be wrong to say there is no risk.
>>>>>sent on the move
>>>>>On 8 Feb 2012 01:22, "vadlam" <sreeram.vadlamudi(a)wellsfargo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>does this issue happen for any previous version of Guvnor data such as 5.0
>>>>>>or 5.1 or 5.2 exported and imported into a Guvnor 5.3 repository ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>does this mean, we cannot rely on 5.3.0 version of Guvnor code when
>>>>>>migrating data from a previous version and should rather apply the fix ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Migrating-repository-data-f...
>>>>>>Sent from the Drools: User forum 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
14 years, 2 months
Rule definition introspection
by GPatel＠tsys.com
Is it possible to self-introspect the rule definition?
For example:
when
$redCar : Car(color == 'red')
then
System.out.println("a red car exists");
Is it possible to know that the above rule uses the Car fact and the
Car.color attribute?
Thanks
G. Patel
-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this communication (including any
attachments hereto) is confidential and is intended solely for the
personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to whom
it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
communication in error and that any review, dissemination, copying,
or unauthorized use of this information, or the taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original
message. Thank you
14 years, 2 months
Rule File Not Found in an OSGi environment
by jjmartinez
Hello all,
I develop an OSGi Drools bundle in Apache Felix. I access to this bundle
with a web service client because I use Apache CXF- DOSGi. Everything is
right here.
But when I try to run this bunle with my client, I get a
FileNotFoundException when I call to the services that I want to use.
This is the error trace:
*java.lang.RuntimeException: java.io.FileNotFoundException: 'RuleFile.drl' c
annot be opened because it does not exist
at
org.drools.compiler.PackageBuilder.addKnowledgeResource(PackageBuilde
r.java:544)
at
org.drools.builder.impl.KnowledgeBuilderImpl.add(KnowledgeBuilderImpl
.java:28)
at
drools.services.impl.DroolsServicesImpl.readKnowledgeBase(DroolsServi
cesImpl.java:110)...
*
The rule file is in the same classpath, and it is inside the .jar file
Somebody can help me??
Thanks in advance!!
--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Rule-File-Not-Found-in-an-OSGi-environm...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
14 years, 2 months
Variable name guidelines?
by Dave
Hello,
Is there a write up of what the naming rules are for drools variables such as when naming globals? For example, can't begin with a number and so on?
Thank you
14 years, 2 months
Guvnor 5.4.0 beta and Authentication
by Amin Mohammed-Coleman
Hi
I am looking at Guvnor and trying to enable authentication using JAAS however I'm struggling to get this working. Is there a full example of what I need to update in beans.xml? I am using JBoss AS 7 to deploy Guvnor.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Amin
14 years, 2 months
Re: [rules-users] logical insertion
by FrankVhh
Hi,
Assuming you are complaining about not being able to logical insert a object
from Java code, let me try to explain.
The problem is that your understanding of logicalInsert is not quite
correct. You can only call logicalInsert from within a rule consequence. The
inserted object will remain in working memory for as long as the "inserting
rule" holds true.
Therefore, it does not make sense to call logicalInsert from your Java
program.
Regards,
Frank
albertorugnone wrote
>
> Hi to every body.
> It is my first post here, and obviously I suppose it will be a silly
> question.
> I am using a StatefullQuestion but I can't insert logically any fact,
> because there is only insert as method and not insertLogical (There is
> instead in working memory). How I can do?
> My understanding about logical insertion is that after a certain amount of
> time (how much?) a fact will be automatically retract. Is it correct?
>
> Thank you in advance for your answer.
> Alberto
>
--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/logical-insertion-tp3750505p3752924.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
14 years, 2 months
