12:42 p.m.
Hi everyone,
I am new to this mailing list, I've had a quick look at archives and didn't
find anything ont this subject but sorry if this has allready been
underlined.
Here is my problem, while I was doing some test on v3.0.6, 4.0.0 came out,
so I started to migrate on the new version. Then I found out an unexpecteed
behavior on the 4.0.0.
I have been compiling both with Java 5 and running whith Java 1.5.0_11. And
I used versions with dependencies on both tests.
I have made an exemple for you to make it as clear as possible, here is the
rule :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
package rules
rule "TwoCheeses"
when
$cheese1 : Cheese();
$cheese2 : Cheese();
then
System.out.println($cheese1);
System.out.println($cheese2);
System.out.println("TwoCheeses");
end
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I run it on V3.0.6, with this code :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
package rules;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
import org.drools.RuleBase;
import org.drools.RuleBaseFactory;
import org.drools.WorkingMemory;
import org.drools.compiler.PackageBuilder;
public class Cheese {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder();
builder.addPackageFromDrl(new InputStreamReader(
Cheese.class.getResourceAsStream("rule.drl")));
RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
ruleBase.addPackage(builder.getPackage());
WorkingMemory workingMemory = ruleBase.newWorkingMemory();
Cheese cheese = new Cheese();
workingMemory.assertObject(cheese);
workingMemory.fireAllRules();
}
}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule doesn't fire, which is normal AMHA since only one Cheese object is
asserted to the WM
When I run it on V4.0.0, whith this code :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
package rules;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
import org.drools.RuleBase;
import org.drools.RuleBaseFactory;
import org.drools.StatefulSession;
import org.drools.compiler.PackageBuilder;
public class Cheese {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder();
builder.addPackageFromDrl(new InputStreamReader(
Cheese.class.getResourceAsStream("rule.drl")));
RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
ruleBase.addPackage(builder.getPackage());
StatefulSession statefulSession = ruleBase.newStatefulSession();
Cheese cheese = new Cheese();
statefulSession.assertObject(cheese);
statefulSession.fireAllRules();
}
}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the rule fires and $cheese1 $cheese2 have the same reference.
I have been searching in all docs, this modification of behavior doesn't
seem to be expected, has anyone noticed this?
Thanks for your help.
Chris
2:35 p.m.
Chris
Version 3.0.x prevents by default a single fact from matching multiple
patterns. For a couple of reasons we had to change the default in 4.0 to
allow a single fact to match multiple patterns. If you don't want this to
happen, you can use one of the following approaches:
* Change the behavior for the whole rulebase. You can do that by either
setting a system property ("drools.removeIdentities=true") or creating a
RuleBaseConfiguration instance:
RuleBaseConfiguration conf = new RuleBaseConfiguration();
conf.setRemoveIdentities( true );
RuleBase rulebase = new ReteooRuleBase( conf );
* Alternativelly, you can manually add a constraint to avoid the behavior
for specific rules, using the "this" keyword.
rule "TwoCheeses"
when
$cheese1 : Cheese();
$cheese2 : Cheese( this != $cheese1 );
then
System.out.println($cheese1);
System.out.println($cheese2);
System.out.println("TwoCheeses");
end
We will add such information to the documentation, but the above shall
give you the idea.
Hope it helps,
Edson
2007/5/15, Chris Woodrow <woodrow.chris(a)gmail.com>:
Hi everyone,
I am new to this mailing list, I've had a quick look at archives and
didn't find anything ont this subject but sorry if this has allready been
underlined.
Here is my problem, while I was doing some test on v3.0.6, 4.0.0 came out,
so I started to migrate on the new version. Then I found out an unexpecteed
behavior on the 4.0.0.
I have been compiling both with Java 5 and running whith Java 1.5.0_11.
And I used versions with dependencies on both tests.
I have made an exemple for you to make it as clear as possible, here is
the rule :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
package rules
rule "TwoCheeses"
when
$cheese1 : Cheese();
$cheese2 : Cheese();
then
System.out.println($cheese1);
System.out.println($cheese2);
System.out.println("TwoCheeses");
end
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I run it on V3.0.6, with this code :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
package rules;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
import org.drools.RuleBase;
import org.drools.RuleBaseFactory;
import org.drools.WorkingMemory;
import org.drools.compiler.PackageBuilder;
public class Cheese {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder();
builder.addPackageFromDrl(new InputStreamReader(
Cheese.class.getResourceAsStream ("rule.drl")));
RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
ruleBase.addPackage(builder.getPackage());
WorkingMemory workingMemory = ruleBase.newWorkingMemory ();
Cheese cheese = new Cheese();
workingMemory.assertObject(cheese);
workingMemory.fireAllRules();
}
}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule doesn't fire, which is normal AMHA since only one Cheese object
is asserted to the WM
When I run it on V4.0.0, whith this code :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
package rules;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
import org.drools.RuleBase;
import org.drools.RuleBaseFactory;
import org.drools.StatefulSession;
import org.drools.compiler.PackageBuilder;
public class Cheese {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder();
builder.addPackageFromDrl(new InputStreamReader(
Cheese.class.getResourceAsStream ("rule.drl")));
RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
ruleBase.addPackage(builder.getPackage());
StatefulSession statefulSession = ruleBase.newStatefulSession();
Cheese cheese = new Cheese();
statefulSession.assertObject(cheese);
statefulSession.fireAllRules();
}
}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the rule fires and $cheese1 $cheese2 have the same reference.
I have been searching in all docs, this modification of behavior doesn't
seem to be expected, has anyone noticed this?
Thanks for your help.
Chris
_______________________________________________
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
2:52 p.m.
On 5/15/07, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
Version 3.0.x prevents by default a single fact from matching multiple
patterns. For a couple of reasons we had to change the default in 4.0 to
allow a single fact to match multiple patterns. If you don't want this to
happen, you can use one of the following approaches:
Huh - shades of Drools 2.X.
If you don't mind me asking, what are the 'couple of reasons'? If there are
reasons, then people might want to know before choosing to, for instance,
turn on the system property.
- Geoffrey
--
Geoffrey Wiseman
3:23 p.m.
I can't remember them, but at the time we where shown some use cases
that worked that way. Also we have the problem that our engine works
differently to other engines, so we decided align with the industry norm
and allow people to choose what they want. Oh and identity removal has a
slight performance impact, as it means it always has to performane an
identity check on each join attempt, even if the scenario will never
likely occur for the current rule definition.
Mark
Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
On 5/15/07, *Edson Tirelli* <tirelli(a)post.com
<mailto:tirelli@post.com>> wrote:
Version 3.0.x prevents by default a single fact from matching
multiple patterns. For a couple of reasons we had to change the
default in 4.0 to allow a single fact to match multiple patterns.
If you don't want this to happen, you can use one of the following
approaches:
Huh - shades of Drools 2.X.
If you don't mind me asking, what are the 'couple of reasons'? If
there are reasons, then people might want to know before choosing to,
for instance, turn on the system property.
- Geoffrey
--
Geoffrey Wiseman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
3:50 p.m.
Yes, two main reasons were the alignment with industry products and the
small perf impact.
[]s
Edson
2007/5/15, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org>:
I can't remember them, but at the time we where shown some use cases that
worked that way. Also we have the problem that our engine works differently
to other engines, so we decided align with the industry norm and allow
people to choose what they want. Oh and identity removal has a slight
performance impact, as it means it always has to performane an identity
check on each join attempt, even if the scenario will never likely occur for
the current rule definition.
Mark
Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
On 5/15/07, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
>
> Version 3.0.x prevents by default a single fact from matching
> multiple patterns. For a couple of reasons we had to change the default in
> 4.0 to allow a single fact to match multiple patterns. If you don't want
> this to happen, you can use one of the following approaches:
Huh - shades of Drools 2.X.
If you don't mind me asking, what are the 'couple of reasons'? If there
are reasons, then people might want to know before choosing to, for
instance, turn on the system property.
- Geoffrey
--
Geoffrey Wiseman
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://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
--
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
3 p.m.
Edson,
Thanks for your help. I also thought about the constraint inside the rule,
but I wanted the rule files to be the same.
Anyway thanks for your help, with #1, it works properly now.
Chris
2007/5/15, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com>:
Chris
Version 3.0.x prevents by default a single fact from matching multiple
patterns. For a couple of reasons we had to change the default in 4.0 to
allow a single fact to match multiple patterns. If you don't want this to
happen, you can use one of the following approaches:
* Change the behavior for the whole rulebase. You can do that by either
setting a system property ("drools.removeIdentities=true") or creating a
RuleBaseConfiguration instance:
RuleBaseConfiguration conf = new RuleBaseConfiguration();
conf.setRemoveIdentities( true );
RuleBase rulebase = new ReteooRuleBase( conf );
* Alternativelly, you can manually add a constraint to avoid the behavior
for specific rules, using the "this" keyword.
rule "TwoCheeses"
when
$cheese1 : Cheese();
$cheese2 : Cheese( this != $cheese1 );
then
System.out.println($cheese1);
System.out.println($cheese2);
System.out.println ("TwoCheeses");
end
We will add such information to the documentation, but the above shall
give you the idea.
Hope it helps,
Edson
2007/5/15, Chris Woodrow < woodrow.chris(a)gmail.com>:
>
> Hi everyone,
> I am new to this mailing list, I've had a quick look at archives and
> didn't find anything ont this subject but sorry if this has allready been
> underlined.
>
> Here is my problem, while I was doing some test on v3.0.6, 4.0.0 came
> out, so I started to migrate on the new version. Then I found out an
> unexpecteed behavior on the 4.0.0.
>
> I have been compiling both with Java 5 and running whith Java 1.5.0_11.
> And I used versions with dependencies on both tests.
>
> I have made an exemple for you to make it as clear as possible, here is
> the rule :
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> package rules
>
> rule "TwoCheeses"
> when
> $cheese1 : Cheese();
> $cheese2 : Cheese();
> then
> System.out.println($cheese1);
> System.out.println($cheese2);
> System.out.println("TwoCheeses");
> end
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> When I run it on V3.0.6, with this code :
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> package rules;
>
> import java.io.InputStreamReader;
>
> import org.drools.RuleBase;
> import org.drools.RuleBaseFactory;
> import org.drools.WorkingMemory;
> import org.drools.compiler.PackageBuilder;
>
> public class Cheese {
> public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
> PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder();
> builder.addPackageFromDrl(new InputStreamReader(
> Cheese.class.getResourceAsStream ("rule.drl")));
>
> RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
>
> ruleBase.addPackage(builder.getPackage());
>
> WorkingMemory workingMemory = ruleBase.newWorkingMemory ();
>
> Cheese cheese = new Cheese();
>
> workingMemory.assertObject(cheese);
>
> workingMemory.fireAllRules();
> }
> }
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The rule doesn't fire, which is normal AMHA since only one Cheese object
> is asserted to the WM
>
> When I run it on V4.0.0, whith this code :
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> package rules;
>
> import java.io.InputStreamReader;
>
> import org.drools.RuleBase;
> import org.drools.RuleBaseFactory;
> import org.drools.StatefulSession;
> import org.drools.compiler.PackageBuilder;
>
> public class Cheese {
> public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
> PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder();
> builder.addPackageFromDrl(new InputStreamReader(
> Cheese.class.getResourceAsStream ("rule.drl")));
>
> RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
>
> ruleBase.addPackage(builder.getPackage());
>
> StatefulSession statefulSession = ruleBase.newStatefulSession();
>
>
> Cheese cheese = new Cheese();
>
> statefulSession.assertObject(cheese);
>
> statefulSession.fireAllRules();
> }
> }
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now the rule fires and $cheese1 $cheese2 have the same reference.
>
> I have been searching in all docs, this modification of behavior doesn't
> seem to be expected, has anyone noticed this?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
woodrow.chris(a)gmail.com est ma nouvelle adresse e-mail.
chris.woodrow(a)free.fr va disparaître, pensez à faire le changement.
6250
days inactive
6250
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Chris Woodrow -
Edson Tirelli -
Geoffrey Wiseman -
Mark Proctor