February 2007 - rules-users - Jboss List Archives

RE: [rules-users] Use of a static variable on rules

by Anstis, Michael (M.)

I've successfully used constant strings in rules like this. Public class Types { Public static final String SMURF = "SMURF"; } Rule "A" When $s : Person ( type == Types.SMURF ) Then stopGargamel($s); End Cheers, Mike -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Brum Sent: 16 February 2007 14:52 To: Rules Users List Subject: [rules-users] Use of a static variable on rules Hello everybody! I'm using a global class in my rules, and tried to compare a fact field with a static variable. This is the rule Rule "A" When Service(state == ((plannerAux).SCHEDULE)) Then Dosomething() End This is the declaration of the static variable from plannerAux. public static String SCHEDULE = "SCHEDULE"; But I'm having this error: Rule Compilation error Expression "(plannerAux)" is not a type Exception:1 errors while compiling unit Rule_A.java" M'I doing something wrong or this is not possible to do? __________________________________ Francisco Brum - francisco.brum(a)link.pt Link Consulting - http://www.link.pt/ Tel.: 213 100 031 Av. Duque D'Ávila, 23 4º Esq. 1000-138 Lisboa _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

18 years, 11 months

3
2
0 / 0

Eclipse 3.2.1 and Jboss Rules 3.0.5

by Uday Kamath

Everything looks ok except when CTRL backspace for content assistance is used it throws this exception. Any one has any clue? java.lang.ClassCastException: org.eclipse.ui.internal.editors.text.JavaFileEditorInput at org.drools.ide.editors.completion.RuleCompletionProcessor.getDSLAdapter( RuleCompletionProcessor.java:549) at org.drools.ide.editors.completion.RuleCompletionProcessor.getCompletionP roposals(RuleCompletionProcessor.java:63) at org.drools.ide.editors.completion.AbstractCompletionProcessor.computeCom pletionProposals(AbstractCompletionProcessor.java:33) at org.eclipse.jface.text.contentassist.ContentAssistant.computeCompletionP roposals(ContentAssistant.java:1612) at org.eclipse.jface.text.contentassist.CompletionProposalPopup.computeProp osals(CompletionProposalPopup.java:473) at org.eclipse.jface.text.contentassist.CompletionProposalPopup.access$17(C ompletionProposalPopup.java:470) at org.eclipse.jface.text.contentassist.CompletionProposalPopup$2.run(Compl etionProposalPopup.java:405) at org.eclipse.swt.custom.BusyIndicator.showWhile(BusyIndicator.java:67) at org.eclipse.jface.text.contentassist.CompletionProposalPopup.showProposa ls(CompletionProposalPopup.java:399) at org.eclipse.jface.text.contentassist.ContentAssistant.showPossibleComple tions(ContentAssistant.java:1441) at org.eclipse.jface.text.source.SourceViewer.doOperation(SourceViewer.java :777) at org.eclipse.jface.text.source.projection.ProjectionViewer.doOperation(Pr ojectionViewer.java:1519) at org.eclipse.ui.texteditor.TextOperationAction$1.run(TextOperationAction. java:131) at org.eclipse.swt.custom.BusyIndicator.showWhile(BusyIndicator.java:67) at org.eclipse.ui.texteditor.TextOperationAction.run(TextOperationAction.ja va:129) at org.eclipse.jface.action.Action.runWithEvent(Action.java:499) at org.eclipse.ui.commands.ActionHandler.execute(ActionHandler.java:185) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.handlers.LegacyHandlerWrapper.execute(LegacyHand lerWrapper.java:109) at org.eclipse.core.commands.Command.executeWithChecks(Command.java:461) at org.eclipse.core.commands.ParameterizedCommand.executeWithChecks(Paramet erizedCommand.java:424) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.handlers.HandlerService.executeCommand(HandlerSe rvice.java:160) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.keys.WorkbenchKeyboard.executeCommand(WorkbenchK eyboard.java:466) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.keys.WorkbenchKeyboard.press(WorkbenchKeyboard.j ava:799) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.keys.WorkbenchKeyboard.processKeyEvent(Workbench Keyboard.java:846) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.keys.WorkbenchKeyboard.filterKeySequenceBindings (WorkbenchKeyboard.java:564) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.keys.WorkbenchKeyboard.access$3(WorkbenchKeyboar d.java:506) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.keys.WorkbenchKeyboard$KeyDownFilter.handleEvent (WorkbenchKeyboard.java:122) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.EventTable.sendEvent(EventTable.java:66) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.filterEvent(Display.java:982) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:927) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:952) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:937) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendKeyEvent(Widget.java:965) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendKeyEvent(Widget.java:961) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.wmChar(Widget.java:1275) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Control.WM_CHAR(Control.java:3346) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Control.windowProc(Control.java:3246) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.windowProc(Display.java:4025) at org.eclipse.swt.internal.win32.OS.DispatchMessageW(Native Method) at org.eclipse.swt.internal.win32.OS.DispatchMessage(OS.java:1925) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:2966) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runEventLoop(Workbench.java:1914) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runUI(Workbench.java:1878) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.createAndRunWorkbench(Workbench.java:4 19) at org.eclipse.ui.PlatformUI.createAndRunWorkbench(PlatformUI.java:149) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ide.IDEApplication.run(IDEApplication.java:95) at org.eclipse.core.internal.runtime.PlatformActivator$1.run(PlatformActiva tor.java:78) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.runApplicat ion(EclipseAppLauncher.java:92) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.start(Eclip seAppLauncher.java:68) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java: 400) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java: 177) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Unknown Source) at org.eclipse.core.launcher.Main.invokeFramework(Main.java:336) at org.eclipse.core.launcher.Main.basicRun(Main.java:280) at org.eclipse.core.launcher.Main.run(Main.java:977) at org.eclipse.core.launcher.Main.main(Main.java:952) -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Ho, Alan Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:07 PM To: Rules Users List Subject: RE: [rules-users] Short-circuit rules by group?! Sorry, I take back what I said about the previous email - when I was refering to agenda groups, I actually ment activation groups. But thinking about it more, I think activation groups might be a ok. Just makes sure that all rules in the activation group have the same consequence. Regards, Alan Ho -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Ho, Alan Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:04 PM To: Rules Users List Subject: RE: [rules-users] Short-circuit rules by group?! I won't recommend using agenda groups in this case. If you want to make sure that a message is sent once and only once per customer, the predicate for each rule should look like : When customer : Customer() "Your custom business logic" && !customer.sentAEvent Then sendEventToCustomer customer.sentAEvent = true drools.assert(customer.sentAEvent) End This will ensure that only one event would get sent. Even if you use Agenda Groups, you can't prevent the LHS (condition statement) to be evaluated for every single rule. In the case where you have multiple rule's LHS are evaluted to be true, the "drools.assert" executed during the first valid rule would cause a revaluation of all rules that has "!customer.sentEvent" in its condition. When the re-evaluations reoccur, the !customer.sendAEvent is evaluated to false, hence a event is never sent twice to the customer. Agenda groups isn't a good idea because then your agenda groups is tightly tied to the data. You might end up creating more and more agenda groups for each customer. Does that make sense :P Regards, Alan Ho -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of jdepaul Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:43 AM To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [rules-users] Short-circuit rules by group?! I have several rules defined in groups by Customer, so I have number of rules for Walmart, some rules for NIKE, more rules for SomeCustomer... When one of the rules matches for a given customer I need to send an event notification. I need to make sure that I send only ONE event notification per Customer (regardless of how many rules were matched), thus after finding the very first match in the Walmart group, I'd like to activate a rule, and then short-circuit and "Skip" to the next group of rules for NIKE - to see if any of the matches are found in the next group. I've implemented this functionality using a Match object, which I assert into WorkingMemory whenever I find a match for customer, then all my rules check for absence of Match for given customer... This works, but I wonder if there is a better way to do it - using Agenda Groups, maybe - once I find ONE match for Walmart, skip to the next Agenda Group?! Could someone comment on this? THanks, James -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Short-circuit-rules-by-group-%21-tf3222142.html#a8 949165 Sent from the drools - user 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

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] Short-circuit rules by group?!

by Ho, Alan

Sorry, I take back what I said about the previous email - when I was refering to agenda groups, I actually ment activation groups. But thinking about it more, I think activation groups might be a ok. Just makes sure that all rules in the activation group have the same consequence. Regards, Alan Ho -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Ho, Alan Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:04 PM To: Rules Users List Subject: RE: [rules-users] Short-circuit rules by group?! I won't recommend using agenda groups in this case. If you want to make sure that a message is sent once and only once per customer, the predicate for each rule should look like : When customer : Customer() "Your custom business logic" && !customer.sentAEvent Then sendEventToCustomer customer.sentAEvent = true drools.assert(customer.sentAEvent) End This will ensure that only one event would get sent. Even if you use Agenda Groups, you can't prevent the LHS (condition statement) to be evaluated for every single rule. In the case where you have multiple rule's LHS are evaluted to be true, the "drools.assert" executed during the first valid rule would cause a revaluation of all rules that has "!customer.sentEvent" in its condition. When the re-evaluations reoccur, the !customer.sendAEvent is evaluated to false, hence a event is never sent twice to the customer. Agenda groups isn't a good idea because then your agenda groups is tightly tied to the data. You might end up creating more and more agenda groups for each customer. Does that make sense :P Regards, Alan Ho -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of jdepaul Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:43 AM To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [rules-users] Short-circuit rules by group?! I have several rules defined in groups by Customer, so I have number of rules for Walmart, some rules for NIKE, more rules for SomeCustomer... When one of the rules matches for a given customer I need to send an event notification. I need to make sure that I send only ONE event notification per Customer (regardless of how many rules were matched), thus after finding the very first match in the Walmart group, I'd like to activate a rule, and then short-circuit and "Skip" to the next group of rules for NIKE - to see if any of the matches are found in the next group. I've implemented this functionality using a Match object, which I assert into WorkingMemory whenever I find a match for customer, then all my rules check for absence of Match for given customer... This works, but I wonder if there is a better way to do it - using Agenda Groups, maybe - once I find ONE match for Walmart, skip to the next Agenda Group?! Could someone comment on this? THanks, James -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Short-circuit-rules-by-group-%21-tf3222142.html#a89... Sent from the drools - user 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

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

How to generate rules from decision tables where LHS has no field constraints

by Martin Weidner

Hello, Maybe I have overlooked something, but I couldn't find a way to generate a simple rule from an excel decision table, where the left hand side contains no field constraints? i.e. rule "do we have cheese" WHEN cheese: Cheese() THEN RHS End Is there a way to achieve this? Thanks in advance, Martin

18 years, 11 months

3
3
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] "Rules Repository" and "Rule Modeller"

by Anstis, Michael (M.)

Thanks Michael, Just so that I can acquaintance myself with your release numbering system; 3.0.5 is the current production release and 3.1.0-M1 I assume to be 3.1 Milestone 1 (pre-release). Presumably M2 and M3 are other milestones on the way to production release of 3.1 (you're going to call it 3.2 I think?)?!?! Is there a release schedule available - so we can pile the pressure on when (if) they're late? ;-) Cheers, Mike ________________________________ From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michael Neale Sent: 14 February 2007 23:59 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] "Rules Repository" and "Rule Modeller" yeah, very much so. Hopefully have a demo of it in M2 or M3. I have been meaning to update the blog with the latest on package management, but haven't found time, I will do ASAP. On 2/15/07, Anstis, Michael (M.) <manstis1(a)ford.com> wrote: Hi, Just a note to enquire as to the status of the captioned? Have they progressed towards release since http://markproctor.blogspot.com/2007/01/relocation-relocation-repository .html <http://markproctor.blogspot.com/2007/01/relocation-relocation-repositor y.html> ? With kind regards, Michael Anstis ------------------------------------------- COSMO(S) * Trafford House (Int) 8 718 2239 * Trafford House (Ext) +44 (0)1268 702239 * < manstis1(a)ford.com <mailto:manstis1@ford.com> > Ford Motor Company Ltd. Registered in England: No. 235446 Registered Office: Eagle Way BRENTWOOD Essex CM13 3BW _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

Focus before assertion - for pattern matching

by Nirmal.R

Hi, Can i set the focus to a particular agenda group where in the engine tries to match the asserted object only to those set of rules Thank you Nirmal -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Focus-before-assertion---for-pattern-matching-tf322... Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

18 years, 11 months

3
2
0 / 0

Short-circuit rules by group?!

by jdepaul

I have several rules defined in groups by Customer, so I have number of rules for Walmart, some rules for NIKE, more rules for SomeCustomer... When one of the rules matches for a given customer I need to send an event notification. I need to make sure that I send only ONE event notification per Customer (regardless of how many rules were matched), thus after finding the very first match in the Walmart group, I'd like to activate a rule, and then short-circuit and "Skip" to the next group of rules for NIKE - to see if any of the matches are found in the next group. I've implemented this functionality using a Match object, which I assert into WorkingMemory whenever I find a match for customer, then all my rules check for absence of Match for given customer... This works, but I wonder if there is a better way to do it - using Agenda Groups, maybe - once I find ONE match for Walmart, skip to the next Agenda Group?! Could someone comment on this? THanks, James -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Short-circuit-rules-by-group-%21-tf3222142.html#a89... Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

18 years, 11 months

2
1
0 / 0

DROOLS 3.1M new syntax & Decision Tables

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

Hi, I wonder if new syntax (specifically - 'accumulate' keyword) works correctly with Decision Tables? Can the new keywords be used in 'Condition' and 'Action' parts of the rule? Thanks, Vlad

18 years, 11 months

2
1
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] Short-circuit rules by group?!

by Ho, Alan

I won't recommend using agenda groups in this case. If you want to make sure that a message is sent once and only once per customer, the predicate for each rule should look like : When customer : Customer() "Your custom business logic" && !customer.sentAEvent Then sendEventToCustomer customer.sentAEvent = true drools.assert(customer.sentAEvent) End This will ensure that only one event would get sent. Even if you use Agenda Groups, you can't prevent the LHS (condition statement) to be evaluated for every single rule. In the case where you have multiple rule's LHS are evaluted to be true, the "drools.assert" executed during the first valid rule would cause a revaluation of all rules that has "!customer.sentEvent" in its condition. When the re-evaluations reoccur, the !customer.sendAEvent is evaluated to false, hence a event is never sent twice to the customer. Agenda groups isn't a good idea because then your agenda groups is tightly tied to the data. You might end up creating more and more agenda groups for each customer. Does that make sense :P Regards, Alan Ho -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of jdepaul Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:43 AM To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [rules-users] Short-circuit rules by group?! I have several rules defined in groups by Customer, so I have number of rules for Walmart, some rules for NIKE, more rules for SomeCustomer... When one of the rules matches for a given customer I need to send an event notification. I need to make sure that I send only ONE event notification per Customer (regardless of how many rules were matched), thus after finding the very first match in the Walmart group, I'd like to activate a rule, and then short-circuit and "Skip" to the next group of rules for NIKE - to see if any of the matches are found in the next group. I've implemented this functionality using a Match object, which I assert into WorkingMemory whenever I find a match for customer, then all my rules check for absence of Match for given customer... This works, but I wonder if there is a better way to do it - using Agenda Groups, maybe - once I find ONE match for Walmart, skip to the next Agenda Group?! Could someone comment on this? THanks, James -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Short-circuit-rules-by-group-%21-tf3222142.html#a89... Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

18 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

decision table + DSL?

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

Hi, I wonder if it is possible to combine decision tables with your own DSL (eg, in rule and action definitions, but ideally in data definition too)? Is there such a way? Is there any keyword that can be set inside the decision table to point to your DSL implementation? Thanks. Vlad

18 years, 11 months

2
1
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 February 2007