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

Are there any (port 80) mirrors from where I can download M1? The subversion repository at http://labs.jboss.com (http://65.244.175.212:8080/portal/jbossrules/subversion.html) is inaccessible through our company firewalls (well, I get HTTP500 in reply). Cheers, Mike ________________________________ From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor Sent: 05 February 2007 12:43 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2? Sorry you Q was about ruleflow in general, not just general releases. Yes RuleFlow is in there and Kris has already done some basic tooling. We are currently trying to decide whether we have the ruleflow as xml or something like drl. As you do ruleflows with tooling we are tempted to keep it xml. Mark Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: 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 <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