Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2?

Hi, Is there any update as to the availability of ruleflow in 3.2 as it's become pivotal to our use of JBoss Rules? Thanks, Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Mark Proctor [mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org] *Sent:* 23 January 2007 16:50 *To:* Anstis, Michael (M.) *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2? as soon as MVEL is ready we'll do an M1, but the ruleflow part is not exposed to thte drl language yet, that will take a few more weeks. Mark Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: > I might have a play around just to see how I get on, but think > I'll wait for 3.1 before I get "serious" - can I get the latest > (unstable) code (is it CVS or somewhere)? > > - and I won't be using this private address ongoing (I didn't > want to hit the rules list with news of your latest code). > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org > [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of > *Mark Proctor > *Sent:* 23 January 2007 16:13 > *To:* Rules Users List > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2? > > not sure its that simple as the stack concept is built into > the engine. but good luck. > > Mark > Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: >> Thanks Mark, >> >> I think I've got the hang of AgendaGroups!! >> >> Presumably if I sub-class DefaultAgenda and override >> setFocus(AgendaGroup ag) and getNextfocus() I can implement >> my own flow-like mechanism instead of the standard stack. >> I'd need to add a way in which to override the DefaultAgenda >> created in ReteooWorkingMemory's constructor too but this >> again should be a simple sub-class (together with a subclass >> of ReteooRulebase with override of newWorkingMemory and a >> new RuleBaseFactory to allow me to construct these new >> objects). Anything major I've missed - my experience with >> rules engines now totals a couple of weeks and it's possible >> I'm missing the point!! >> >> With kind regards, >> >> Mike >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >> [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf >> Of *Mark Proctor >> *Sent:* 22 January 2007 16:33 >> *To:* Rules Users List >> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss >> Rules 3.2? >> >> Anstis, >> >> We don't have ruleflow, but we do have AgendaGroups >> which can provide a form of rule flow, just that its >> actually stack based. I'm working on a more general >> ruleflow idea at the moment, it may make it into the end >> of Q1 release, but its not defnite yet. >> >> Normally you cache the rulebase in a singleton and then >> just creating working memory instances as and when you >> need to - creating a working memory is light. >> >> The guided gui builder is for 3.2, it's web only based >> on GWT, I believe that it will also do DSLs (Mic will >> have to confirm that). >> >> Mark >> Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm evaluating BRMS's for a new project at work. >>> >>> JBoss Rules today swung into pole position however I am >>> unclear on a number of features. I wonder whether this >>> user-group can help? >>> >>> I list a number of aspects I "think" are currently >>> missing in JBoss Rules together with my thoughts: If >>> anybody can clarify the position, provide alternatives >>> or help push JBoss Rules I'd be pleased to hear! >>> >>> * We require ruleflow (where rules run >>> sequentially; like "identify all machines X" then >>> "calculate prices" - not perhaps a good >>> illustration as this could be written as one rule >>> "calculate all prices using machine XXX"!!!). >>> Ideally "dynamic" ruleflow is required too - >>> where the next rule in a sequence is determined >>> by the outcome of a preceding rule (I have seen >>> dynamic achieved with "trigger" Facts asserted as >>> the RHS of rules however our "Business Users" >>> cannot be expected to author rules following this >>> design pattern. I have also seen static >>> implemented with salience). Is ruleflow (static >>> or dynamic) part of 3.2 - otherwise we'll need to >>> categorise rules having different types fired >>> throughout a "coded" process in Java. >>> * A J2EE runtime to provide scalability of the RETE >>> engine. We need to have the engine being shared >>> across sessions on a web-server. What experiences >>> have others had? Do you simply provide a working >>> memory instance per session (how does this scale >>> horizontally?). I also read that an Application >>> Server runtime would be part of 3.2, is this true? >>> * A rule authoring environment for end-users. I >>> read on Mark Proctor's blogg that this is in >>> development but is it set for inclusion in 3.2 >>> and does it handle DSL too; otherwise we'd have >>> to write out own? >>> >>> With kind regards, >>> >>> Michael Anstis >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> *Next Generation Estimating System* >>> ( Trafford House (Int) 8 718 2239 >>> ( Trafford House (Ext) +44 (0)1268 702239 >>> * <_mailto:manstis1@ford.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