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@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@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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
  
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
  