March 2007 - rules-users - Jboss List Archives

by ismail

Hello, I'm new in drools, I want to implement JSR-94 client code in my system workflow. Please I want to know the package javax.rules.* and javax.rules.administrator.* is standart for only for JSR-94 ,which allows bypassing the vendor lock in, or we can used for any implementation we want. thank you -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/API-JSR-94-tf3478824.html#a9708821 Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

Question : Rule engine in J2EE application

by vista2007

we are working in a J2EE (EJB 3) application. We want to implement some of our business logics using jboss rules. 1. can we use jboss rules to validate a very large data set (exceeding 100000 records) ? any problums when we assertsd a large no of data objects to working memory ? 2. which is the best way of integrating rule engine at the Business Tier ? Thank You. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Question-%3A-Rule-engine-in-J2EE-application-tf3477... Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

decision table, business problem

by Frank Langelage

We use JBoss Rules Version 3.0.5 for data mapping tasks with success. We tried to solve the following business case but did not find a nice solution. We have an object of type Item (Order line main pos.) which gets Features assigned. The source to derive the Features from are also Item objects (Order lines sub pos.). We asserted the sub pos Items to the working memory and use them in the condition column: RuleTable AddOns CONDITION item:Item(manufCode=="$1") Sub position of Design TOST TOBB30 TOMB30 CI TD PUMS CSR WTD-OVEN SDI TOBB12 TO42 We want to fill up a list of predefined features, starting with id 1100 e.g., with the item codes existing in the order they appear in this list. So we have to create an Object of type Feature with id *1100* and value=TOST if an Item with code TOST exists. If this was done and an Item with code TOBB30 also exists, we want to create a Feature with code *1101* and value TOBB30. If an item with code TOST does not exist, but an item with code TOBB30 exists, we want to create a Feature object with id *1100* and value TOBB30. So the Action is: assert ( new Feature( ?, item.getManufCode() ); But how to get an value starting at 1100 and increasing for each assert? We thought about using a global for this Feature id, but how to assign a starting value to it and increasing it for each successful rule line? Any ideas? Regards, Frank

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

JBoss Rules 3.0.6 was released

by Edson Tirelli

JBoss Rules v3.0.6 was released. As always, you can download it from the project site http://labs.jboss.com/portal/jbossrules/downloads. This is a maintenance release, with a few bug fixes. We strongly advise all people using JBoss Rules versions 3.0.x to upgrade to version 3.0.6, specially those using dynamic rules. Our special thanks to Frederic Burlet and Einat Idan for providing patches and all the community users for using, testing and reporting bugs and suggestions. Follows the list of fixed bugs. Release Notes for JBoss Rules 3.0.6 Bug [ JBRULES-442 <http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-442> ] Building from source failed: Serialisation / externalisation Error [ JBRULES-592 <http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-592> ] Problem with WorkingMemory serialization [ JBRULES-598 <http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-598> ] Core is not indexing beta memory for Strings and Dates [ JBRULES-603 <http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-603> ] AbstractRuleBase.removeRule(String, String) does not release the lock when failing removing rule from the package [ JBRULES-612 <http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-612> ] NPE on asserting facts before reading rules with retract [ JBRULES-615 <http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-615> ] Declared imports should override the default java.lang.* imports [ JBRULES-641 <http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-641> ] Support for primitive array throws an org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage exception Patch [ JBRULES-607 <http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-607> ] Working memory is not disposed when releasing the RuleSession -- Edson Tirelli Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer Office: +55 11 3124-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

RE: [rules-users] followup - 'or' for different field constraints

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

Yet on the other hand, if/when it would be possible to use column binding in field constraints, this functionality will be possible to achieve like this, ie, rewrite this piece: Record (fieldAsString matches "[xyz]" or fieldAsInt > 1, $myOtherField : myOtherField) Record ($field : field, fieldAsString matches "[xyz]" or fieldAsInt > 1, myOtherField == $myOtherField) Record (field == $field) as $r: ( $r1: ( Record (fieldAsString matches "[xyz]") or Record (fieldAsInt > 1) ) $r2: ( Record (fieldAsString matches "[xyz]", myOtherField == $r1.myOtherField) or Record (fieldAsInt > 1, myOtherField == $r1.myOtherField) ) Record (field == $r2.field) ) More verbose, but I think it should work the same way.... _____ From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) Sent: 27 March 2007 11:02 To: Rules Users List Subject: [rules-users] followup - 'or' for different field constraints ... the only thing that would not be allowed is to do the binding on the this 'connective constraint', since it would make sense. Eg, Record ($invalidBinding : fieldAsString matches "[zxc]" or fieldAsInt > 0) ) , since it's kind of 'views' for the 'field' variable, while this one will work: Record ($correctBidning : field, fieldAsString matches "[zxc]" or fieldAsInt > 0) ), ie you need to bind the 'original' field, NOT the views. To think of this, it would actually be need to the <field>AsString, <field>AsInt, etc getters to be autogenerated.... Or even better - do that behind the scene depending on the context, if there is no ambiguity involved... Vlad

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

followup - 'or' for different field constraints

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

... the only thing that would not be allowed is to do the binding on the this 'connective constraint', since it would make sense. Eg, Record ($invalidBinding : fieldAsString matches "[zxc]" or fieldAsInt > 0) ) , since it's kind of 'views' for the 'field' variable, while this one will work: Record ($correctBidning : field, fieldAsString matches "[zxc]" or fieldAsInt > 0) ), ie you need to bind the 'original' field, NOT the views. To think of this, it would actually be need to the <field>AsString, <field>AsInt, etc getters to be autogenerated.... Or even better - do that behind the scene depending on the context, if there is no ambiguity involved... Vlad

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

question - using 'or' to concatenate _different_ field constraint s

by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)

Hi, I wonder if this is possible in the current 3.1M release (or will be possible in the 3.2 final).... I need to concatenate field constraints with 'or' logic, so smth like: Record (fieldAsString matches "[xyz]" or fieldAsInt > 1, $myOtherField : myOtherField) The above is just to illustrate an idea (ie, the case above can easily be written as 'or' concatenation of column constraints). My 'record' object is far more complex. Moreover, the column concatenation logic can contain over 4 different columns. Also, I need to use field binding on the matched columns, eg: Record (fieldAsString matches "[xyz]" or fieldAsInt > 1, $myOtherField : myOtherField) Record ($field : field, fieldAsString matches "[xyz]" or fieldAsInt > 1, myOtherField == $myOtherField) Record (field == $field) Basically the idea is that I need to define both 'string' and 'number' constraints on a field. Eg, if 'field' value can be a number "1234567", then constrains I want to have might be: - field (as string) matches "123[0-9]{3}7" - field (as int) > 1230000 To do this I have different getters in my fact object linked to the same field: Class Record { String field; Public String getFieldAsString() { Return field; } Public int getFieldAsInt() { Return Integer.parseInt(field); } Public String getField() { Return field; } } I believe such thing is not possible to do with current implementation. If not, is it planned for? If not, should it be planned for? It seems like a very valid use case, since there is a set of applications where business analysts want to define constraints as a combination of field as a string pattern AND field as a number (in my particular example - constrains on account numbers. The pattern is used to define 'account types', while numeric range is used to define particular organizations with the account type) Thanks, Vlad

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

Will the alternative lead to a better performance?

by Premkumar Stephen

Hi, Consider that I have 500 instances of interface userI. Now, there are 3000 rules currently written based on a combination of these instances. if { $a : userI (name = "A") $b : userI (name = "B") } then { //do some actions } How many tests are needed for a match in the RETE network for this rule? If I created 500 classes, one for each object, such as UserA implements userI and so on... my rule will look like: if { $a : UserA() $b : UserB() } then { //do some actions } Will this lead to better performance since there will only be one such instance of this object? As for class-loading concerns, will there be a parsing/memory penalty to be paid for having 500 classes now instead of one? Thanks!

17 years, 1 month

2
5
0 / 0

Decision table != syntax ...

by Wen-Ching Lin

Hi all, I tried to use "not equal to" some sets in decision table but seem to have problems. Does anyone happen to know what I did wrong in the following code? meow:CatType( p:category -> ( p !="$1" && p !="$2" && p!="$3" ) ) Thanks very much! Wen. --------------------------------- Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

17 years, 1 month

2
1
0 / 0

Fwd: [rules-users] syntax question

by Edson Tirelli

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edson Tirelli <ed.tirelli(a)gmail.com> Date: 26/03/2007 15:06 Subject: Re: [rules-users] syntax question To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org> Michael, You got it right again. Just adding to your answer, the best way usually is to reorder the patterns as you did, having the collection as the last constraint, but it is also possible to use a predicate, instead of eval(), if you need to bind the collection earlier. Example: Customer( $cars: cars ) Manufacturer( $m : name, ( $cars.contains( $m ) ) ) []s Edson 2007/3/26, Anstis, Michael (M.) < manstis1(a)ford.com>: > > Hi Bruce, > > From my experience (with 3.1-M1) you can reference bound Facts/Columns in > subsequent patterns; like:- > > $m : Manufacturer ( name == "Honda" ) > $c : Car ( manufacturer == $m ) > $c : Customer ( cars contains $c, age > 18 ) > > $cars.contains("Honda") requires an eval statement as your requirement is > equivalent to "Customer ( cars.contains("Honda") )" which does not use a > zero-parameter field accessor and is not compliant with the Java Beans > specification). > > With kind regards, > > Mike > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto: > rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Bruce leroy > *Sent:* 23 March 2007 18:20 > *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > *Subject:* [rules-users] syntax question > > Hi, > > I have a question regarding rules syntax particularly with left hand side. > Suppose I have the following condition .. > > when > Customer ( $cars : cars, age > 18 ) > ... > > How can I use the bind variable "$cars" in subsequent statements without > using eval(), like so ... > > when > Customer ( $cars : cars, age > 18 ) > eval( $cars.contains( "Honda" ) ) > .... > > > Basically I would like to know what the alternatives for doing something > like so this without having to use eval function. I know this might not be > the best example for this question, but please I'm just learning this system > right now. > > > Thanks in advance, > Bruce. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 3124-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com -- Edson Tirelli Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer Office: +55 11 3124-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com

17 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

rules-users March 2007