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