July 2007 - rules-users - Jboss List Archives

by Natraj Gudla

Hi, I see the online MR3 documentation for 4.0.0 looks similar to that of 3.0.6. I dont find, any details on the rule flows and any new things.please help?? Thanks Natraj Gudla.

16 years, 10 months

2
3
0 / 0

Efficiency Question

by Simon French

Hi. I'm wondering if somebody could tell me if what I'm doing is efficient or not. Having written a number of rules we found that we were duplicating a number of constants, and if any of the "constants" (we later found out they are more like variants !!) it meant changing them in a number of places. What we came up with was to use a spreadsheet with three columns, variable name, a string value and a numeric value. We then used a little VB to produce an XML document, and via JAXB load the XML in as Java classes and assert the data into working memory. So we have a Class something like :- public class ConstantValueType { protected String varName; protected int intVal; protected String stringVal; ........... } Then within our rules we doing rule "Exclusions 1" salience 500 when ConstantValueType(varName == "MaxProposerAge",$maxProposerAge : intVal ) $res : ResultData(schemeCode == "TE") $pr : Proposer($age : age > $maxProposerAge ) then System.out.println("**** Not flexing because proposer age >= "+($maxProposerAge+1)); retract($res); end What I'm wondering is because I'm doing a ?join? pr : Proposer($age : age > $maxProposerAge ) presumably this is similar to an eval and as such the rules engine is having to evaluate this each time rather than having the information ready to hand each time the rule is evaluated? If this is inefficient is there another way of achieving this? We're currently working with 3.0.6 As it stands the rules engine is flying, but it would be nice to know if what I'm doing could be done better Thanks in advance Simon

16 years, 10 months

2
1
0 / 0

Re: [rules-dev] Re: [rules-users] Problem with update(fact)

by Felipe Piccolini

...Always change the huge signature... sorry... Edson, I tried what you said, but it is not the same... cant get the expected result. With agenda-group the can control de flow, but outside the rules (auto-focus didnt work well), and before that I prefer to use rule-flow-group (and use the GUI). What Im trying to get is a set of rules that dont depend on flows or sequences to work together, because this set of rules can be large and I dont want the business user have to check all rules to know how to write the next rule... they must be writen in an independent way, but work together... lock-on-active didnt work either to get that result, because when I use it stops activations, so the update(fact) actually has no effect on other rules... I need to put wm.setFocus ("group1");wm.setFocus("group2");..etc. at the java code... I dont want to do that... Maybe you can help me... an example will be this...(pseudo code) rule "base vacation days" when e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 1) then e.setVacationDays(10); update(e); end rule "seniors extra vacation days" when e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 4, vd: vacationDays) then e.setVacationDays(vd+2); update(e); end rule "old-employee extra vacation days" when e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 10, vd: vacationDays) then e.setVacationDays(vd+4); update(e); end ....and so on.... So I need the business ppl write this rules without knowing the rest of the rules... I think this is the idea of having a rule-system... Thanks. On 03-07-2007, at 16:40, Edson Tirelli wrote: > > Felipe, > > Thanks. I'm working on it. > > BTW, I forgot to mention, what you are doing to control rules is > a not a good way to do it. You should try agenda-group+lock-on- > active rule attributes instead. > Look at the conway's game of life as an example, and maybe help > us document the feature... :) > > []s > Edson > > 2007/7/3, Felipe Piccolini < felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl>: > Edson, > > Thanks for the reply... it is nasty... > > Jira created... > http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-966 > > Thanks > > PD: duplicated email because I forgot to cut the huge-company- > signature... :) > > On 03-07-2007, at 14:18, Edson Tirelli wrote: > >> >> Felipe, >> >> Ok, this is a nasty damn bug. :( >> >> I'm working on a solution for it right now. May I ask you >> please to open a JIRA for it and attach your code bellow? >> >> Thank you, >> Edson >> >> 2007/7/3, Felipe Piccolini < felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl>: >> I know I already asked this in a previous email, but no answer and >> diferent subject... so I'll ask again >> >> I have an issue using update in 2 rules that update the same >> object... a loop is created even when I try to >> avoid the loop adding an extra condition to each rule... Im >> inserting an ArrayList as a fact too, so I can check >> the extra condition... >> >> Can anyone tell me how to fix this? >> >> Consider this: >> //-------RULES----------------------------- >> package cl.bluesoft.test >> >> #list any import classes here. >> import java.util.List >> import java.util.ArrayList >> >> import cl.bluesoft.test.rules.Fact >> >> #declare any global variables here >> >> rule "test update A" >> salience 699 >> no-loop >> when >> $f : Fact($n: number > 0) >> $list: ArrayList( this excludes "key1" ) >> then >> System.out.println( "A-fact number1:"+$f.getNumber()+ " list >> 1:"+$list); >> $list.add( "key1" ); >> $f.setNumber($n + 1); >> update ($f); >> update ($list); >> System.out.println("A-fact number2:" +$f.getNumber()+" list >> 2:" +$list); >> end >> >> >> rule "test update B" >> salience 699 >> no-loop >> when >> $f : Fact($n: number > 1) >> $list: ArrayList( this excludes "key2" ) >> then >> System.out.println( "B-fact number1:" +$f.getNumber()+" list >> 1:" +$list); >> $list.add("key2" ); >> $f.setNumber($n + 1); >> update ($f); >> update ($list); >> System.out.println("B-fact number2:" +$f.getNumber()+ " list >> 2:"+$list); >> end >> >> //-------FACT----------------------------- >> public class Fact implements Serializable { >> private static final long serialVersionUID = 331627137981862975L; >> >> private int number; >> >> public Fact(int number){ >> this.number = number; >> } >> >> public Fact(){ >> this(0); >> } >> >> /** >> * @return the number >> */ >> public int getNumber() { >> return number; >> } >> >> /** >> * @param number the number to set >> */ >> public void setNumber(int number) { >> this.number = number; >> } >> >> } >> >> //------TEST--------- >> public class TestUpdateFact implements Serializable { >> >> private static final long serialVersionUID = -574789596641083743L; >> >> /** >> * @param args >> */ >> public static void main(String[] args) { >> RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase(); >> Package pkg = builder.getPackage(); >> .... >> WorkingMemory session = ruleBase.getStatefulSession(); >> ...etc etc... >> >> List list = new ArrayList(); >> >> Fact fact1 = new Fact(1); >> >> session.fireAllRules(); >> >> ....etc, etc... >> >> } >> >> } >> >> //--------OUTPUT------------ >> A-fact number1:1 list 1:[] >> A-fact number2:2 list 2:[key1] >> B-fact number1:2 list 1:[key1] >> B-fact number2:3 list 2:[key1, key2] >> A-fact number1:3 list 1:[key1, key2] >> A-fact number2:4 list 2:[key1, key2, key1] >> B-fact number1:4 list 1:[key1, key2, key1] >> B-fact number2:5 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2] >> A-fact number1:5 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2] >> A-fact number2:6 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1] >> B-fact number1:6 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1] >> B-fact number2:7 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2] >> A-fact number1:7 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2] >> A-fact number2:8 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2, key1] >> B-fact number1:8 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2, key1] >> >> .... for ever..... >> >> So I have a loop... only when I use update and both rules... >> condition about the >> list not containing "key1" and "key2" seems not properly >> chequed... I dont know... >> >> Can somebody help me? Am I missing something here? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> Felipe Piccolini M. >> felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > Felipe Piccolini M. > felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > > > > -- > 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-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev Felipe Piccolini M. felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

Another Efficiency Question

by David Nogueras

Hi i´m doing Efficiency tests: Manners 16-32-64-128-256 and 512 and i´m seing that it has decreased, is it relationship with the change workingmemory - statefullsession?? Thanks

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: [rules-dev] Re: [rules-users] Problem with update(fact)

by Felipe Piccolini

Edson, I tried what you said, but it is not the same... cant get the expected result. With agenda-group the can control de flow, but outside the rules (auto-focus didnt work well), and before that I prefer to use rule-flow-group (and use the GUI). What Im trying to get is a set of rules that dont depend on flows or sequences to work together, because this set of rules can be large and I dont want the business user have to check all rules to know how to write the next rule... they must be writen in an independent way, but work together... lock-on-active didnt work either to get that result, because when I use it stops activations, so the update(fact) actually has no effect on other rules... I need to put wm.setFocus ("group1");wm.setFocus("group2");..etc. at the java code... I dont want to do that... Maybe you can help me... an example will be this...(pseudo code) rule "base vacation days" when e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 1) then e.setVacationDays(10); update(e); end rule "seniors extra vacation days" when e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 4, vd: vacationDays) then e.setVacationDays(vd+2); update(e); end rule "old-employee extra vacation days" when e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 10, vd: vacationDays) then e.setVacationDays(vd+4); update(e); end ....and so on.... So I need the business ppl write this rules without knowing the rest of the rules... I think this is the idea of having a rule-system... Thanks. On 03-07-2007, at 16:40, Edson Tirelli wrote: > > Felipe, > > Thanks. I'm working on it. > > BTW, I forgot to mention, what you are doing to control rules is > a not a good way to do it. You should try agenda-group+lock-on- > active rule attributes instead. > Look at the conway's game of life as an example, and maybe help > us document the feature... :) > > []s > Edson > > 2007/7/3, Felipe Piccolini < felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl>: > Edson, > > Thanks for the reply... it is nasty... > > Jira created... > http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-966 > > Thanks > > PD: duplicated email because I forgot to cut the huge-company- > signature... :) > > On 03-07-2007, at 14:18, Edson Tirelli wrote: > >> >> Felipe, >> >> Ok, this is a nasty damn bug. :( >> >> I'm working on a solution for it right now. May I ask you >> please to open a JIRA for it and attach your code bellow? >> >> Thank you, >> Edson >> >> 2007/7/3, Felipe Piccolini < felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl>: >> I know I already asked this in a previous email, but no answer and >> diferent subject... so I'll ask again >> >> I have an issue using update in 2 rules that update the same >> object... a loop is created even when I try to >> avoid the loop adding an extra condition to each rule... Im >> inserting an ArrayList as a fact too, so I can check >> the extra condition... >> >> Can anyone tell me how to fix this? >> >> Consider this: >> //-------RULES----------------------------- >> package cl.bluesoft.test >> >> #list any import classes here. >> import java.util.List >> import java.util.ArrayList >> >> import cl.bluesoft.test.rules.Fact >> >> #declare any global variables here >> >> rule "test update A" >> salience 699 >> no-loop >> when >> $f : Fact($n: number > 0) >> $list: ArrayList( this excludes "key1" ) >> then >> System.out.println( "A-fact number1:"+$f.getNumber()+ " list >> 1:"+$list); >> $list.add( "key1" ); >> $f.setNumber($n + 1); >> update ($f); >> update ($list); >> System.out.println("A-fact number2:" +$f.getNumber()+" list >> 2:" +$list); >> end >> >> >> rule "test update B" >> salience 699 >> no-loop >> when >> $f : Fact($n: number > 1) >> $list: ArrayList( this excludes "key2" ) >> then >> System.out.println( "B-fact number1:" +$f.getNumber()+" list >> 1:" +$list); >> $list.add("key2" ); >> $f.setNumber($n + 1); >> update ($f); >> update ($list); >> System.out.println("B-fact number2:" +$f.getNumber()+ " list >> 2:"+$list); >> end >> >> //-------FACT----------------------------- >> public class Fact implements Serializable { >> private static final long serialVersionUID = 331627137981862975L; >> >> private int number; >> >> public Fact(int number){ >> this.number = number; >> } >> >> public Fact(){ >> this(0); >> } >> >> /** >> * @return the number >> */ >> public int getNumber() { >> return number; >> } >> >> /** >> * @param number the number to set >> */ >> public void setNumber(int number) { >> this.number = number; >> } >> >> } >> >> //------TEST--------- >> public class TestUpdateFact implements Serializable { >> >> private static final long serialVersionUID = -574789596641083743L; >> >> /** >> * @param args >> */ >> public static void main(String[] args) { >> RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase(); >> Package pkg = builder.getPackage(); >> .... >> WorkingMemory session = ruleBase.getStatefulSession(); >> ...etc etc... >> >> List list = new ArrayList(); >> >> Fact fact1 = new Fact(1); >> >> session.fireAllRules(); >> >> ....etc, etc... >> >> } >> >> } >> >> //--------OUTPUT------------ >> A-fact number1:1 list 1:[] >> A-fact number2:2 list 2:[key1] >> B-fact number1:2 list 1:[key1] >> B-fact number2:3 list 2:[key1, key2] >> A-fact number1:3 list 1:[key1, key2] >> A-fact number2:4 list 2:[key1, key2, key1] >> B-fact number1:4 list 1:[key1, key2, key1] >> B-fact number2:5 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2] >> A-fact number1:5 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2] >> A-fact number2:6 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1] >> B-fact number1:6 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1] >> B-fact number2:7 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2] >> A-fact number1:7 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2] >> A-fact number2:8 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2, key1] >> B-fact number1:8 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2, key1] >> >> .... for ever..... >> >> So I have a loop... only when I use update and both rules... >> condition about the >> list not containing "key1" and "key2" seems not properly >> chequed... I dont know... >> >> Can somebody help me? Am I missing something here? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> Felipe Piccolini M. >> felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > Felipe Piccolini M. > felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > > > > -- > 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-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev Atentamente, ______________________ Felipe Piccolini Marfull Jefe de Proyectos Agustina 1141 Piso 8-B Santiago Fono +(56 2) 68830837 E-mail felipe.piccolini(a)bluesoft.cl

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

upload rules from a drl archive

by David Nogueras

Hi, i´d like to know if it´s going to be possible upload a drl file with your rules and how to integrate jbrms with your "eclipse" rules thanks, David.

16 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

Issues Regarding use " Eval"

by Rajesh_Kumar

Hi all, I want to use "eval" in my rules, but in rule writing guidelines Mark has Written that "Eval is Evil". I want to compare the values of Hash Map in my when (conditions) part. 1) Will anyone suggest something so that I can compare Hash Map keys in when part? 2) Does is there any performance related issue related to "eval"; Regards Rajesh -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

16 years, 10 months

3
2
0 / 0

RE: rules-users Digest, Vol 8, Issue 1

by Rajesh_Kumar

hi Mark, Could you please provide us the reasons , why you have written "eval is evil" in rule writing guidelines.I want to use it in my rules. Regards Rajesh Choudhary. -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of rules-users-request(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 9:30 PM To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: rules-users Digest, Vol 8, Issue 1 Send rules-users mailing list submissions to rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to rules-users-request(a)lists.jboss.org You can reach the person managing the list at rules-users-owner(a)lists.jboss.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of rules-users digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Unexpected token "." in primary - Rule Compilation Error (McShiv) 2. Help with MR3 (s erel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:05:19 -0700 (PDT) From: McShiv <rajesh_sachin10(a)yahoo.co.in> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Unexpected token "." in primary - Rule Compilation Error To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Message-ID: <11377473.post(a)talk.nabble.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Michael, What is vanilla DRL? Can you briefly explain about it? Thanks, McShiv Michael Neale wrote: > > hmm.. there is a problem with the action of the 2nd rule, so, converting > it > to vanilla DRL: > > rule "SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12" > salience 50 > > when > ... > then > if(common.getProd() == "{prodCode1}" || common.getPlan() == > "{planCode1}"){System.out.println("Error");} > end > > That doesn't look quite right - you are doing == on strings - .equals > would > be better). I would try that rule on its own, without a DSL - to see what > is > causing it. Also - why are you doing the if on the RHS? I would get rid of > that if at all possible to save confusion later. > > On 6/30/07, McShiv <rajesh_sachin10(a)yahoo.co.in> wrote: >> >> >> DRL Syntax >> package com.policy; >> expander SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan.dsl; >> #list any import classes here. >> import com.viking.common.transferbeans.CommonInformation; >> import com.sentry.common.entitybeans.EntityBean; >> import com.sentry.common.entitybeans.Selected; >> import java.util.ArrayList; >> import java.util.List; >> #declare any global variables here >> >> rule "SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan11" >> salience 100 >> >> when >> The EntityBean Contains Selected List >> then >> Assert All The Selected >> end >> >> rule "SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12" >> salience 50 >> >> when >> The Question Code Is "License" And The Selected Value is "Y" >> then >> Remove The Product "09" And Plan "CD" >> end >> >> DSL Syntax: >> >> [when] The EntityBean Contains Selected List = entity : EntityBean(); >> eval(entity.getSelected() != null); >> [then] Assert All The Selected = Object[] quoSelList = entity.getSelected >> (); >> for(int i = 0; i < quoSelList.length; i++){ Selected queSel = >> (Selected)quoSelList[i]; assert(queSel); System.out.println(queSel); } >> >> [when] The Question Code Is "{speCode1}" And The Selected Value is >> "{speValue1}" = common : CommonInformation(); Selected(stateSpecificCode >> == >> "{speCode1}", stateSpecificValue == "{speValue1}"); >> [then] Remove The Product "{prodCode1}" And Plan "{planCode1}" = >> if(common.getProd() == "{prodCode1}" || common.getPlan() == >> "{planCode1}"){System.out.println("Error");} >> >> >> The Selected Class is an Object Array inside EntityBean Class. >> CommonInformation is a seperate class. CommonInformation & EntityBean >> will >> be available in Working Memory(asserted earlier in java class). >> >> I need to remove the Selected Classes in the Object array and assert into >> the working memory. Thats what I am doing in the First Rule. >> >> In the Second rule I check for some condition and print the error >> according >> to the condition. >> Thanks, >> McShiv >> >> Fernando Meyer Camargo wrote: >> > >> > howdy, >> > >> > is your package name right? please paste your rule code. >> > >> > Fernando Meyer >> > fmcamargo(a)gmail.com >> > GPG: 5A6D 3374 B055 A513 9A02 A03B 3DB3 7485 D804 DDFB >> > >> > >> > On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:16 PM, McShiv wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> com.package.FatalSystemException >> >> at org.drools.rule.Package.checkValidity(Unknown Source) >> >> at org.drools.reteoo.RuleBaseImpl.addPackage(Unknown Source) >> >> at >> >> com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.DroolsExecutor.executeRules >> >> (DroolsExecutor.java) >> >> at >> >> com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.callRules >> >> Executor(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:82) >> >> at >> >> com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.rulesExec >> >> utionprocess(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:65) >> >> at >> >> com.sentry.underwriting.ruleprocessor.RulesProcessor.processRules >> >> (RulesProcessor.java) >> >> at >> >> com.sentry.underwriting.test.UnderwritingDemo.main >> >> (UnderwritingDemo.java:21) >> >> Caused by: org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage: Rule Compilation >> >> error File >> >> com/policy/Rule_SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12_0.java, Line 12, Column 176: >> >> Unexpected token "." in primary >> >> >> >> ... 7 more >> >> >> >> >> >> I am using Drools 3.0.6 version. >> >> >> >> I got the above message when the drl files are added to the >> >> RuleBase class. >> >> >> >> I debugged the code. The error was thrown when >> >> ruleBase.addPackage(packageBuilder.getPackage()); line was called >> >> in the >> >> DroolsExecutor class. >> >> >> >> Can anyone please suggest me any sollution for this problem. >> >> >> >> Thanks in addvance. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> McShiv. >> >> -- >> >> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected- >> >> token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compilation-Error- >> >> tf4002948.html#a11369488 >> >> 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 >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected-token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compila tion-Error-tf4002948.html#a11369670 >> 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 > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected-token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compila tion-Error-tf4002948.html#a11377473 Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 18:36:23 +0300 From: "s erel" <erelsagi(a)gmail.com> Subject: [rules-users] Help with MR3 To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Message-ID: <1a1500b50707010836t71a04e1cx6b9b5775cda5f780(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello, I've just started integrating MR3 into my project (I've previously used 3.06). The drl compiles and everything seems fine, but during tests the following exception is thrown for time to time: java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 17 at org.drools.util.AbstractHashTable$HashTableIterator.next( AbstractHashTable.java:250) at org.drools.reteoo.Rete$ObjectTypeConf.buildCache(Rete.java:434) at org.drools.reteoo.Rete$ObjectTypeConf.getObjectTypeNodes(Rete.java:425) at org.drools.reteoo.Rete.assertObject(Rete.java:172) at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.assertObject(ReteooRuleBase.java:190) at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory$WorkingMemoryReteAssertAction.exec ute( ReteooWorkingMemory.java:163) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.executeQueuedActions( AbstractWorkingMemory.java:1135) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert( AbstractWorkingMemory.java:781) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert( AbstractWorkingMemory.java:584) at org.drools.jsr94.rules.StatefulRuleSessionImpl.addObject( StatefulRuleSessionImpl.java:162) This only happens during high load tests. Can anyone help me? Thanks

16 years, 10 months

2
1
0 / 0

Class old and new classes

by Gaminda Jayakody

Hi I found that certain Classes in the old versions of rules has been removed and not define in the new versions as deprecated as java normally does. This results that the old version implementations cant run with new versions of jboss rules without revising the implementation codes. Id like to know the reasons for this type of approach. Thank you. --------------------------------- Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

16 years, 10 months

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 July 2007