Hi Chris,

   Regarding flow and fusion and expert, that is the point of Drools 5. To use all of them seamlessly together. Rules, events and processes are all first class citizens in the platform. Now, if we achieved this goal or if we are in the right track, that is for you and the community to say. :)

   Regarding functions, I think it is a gray line that we are talking about, and maybe even just because we are talking at such high levels. IMO when you talk about function *library*, it makes me think of a set of common, domain specific and/or general purpose functions that are available for all your rules to use as necessary. In this case, I recommend the static class methods because it is something that will be isolated, documented, and well tested both for functional reqs and against regressions, and will be developed by developers. A developer/BA should not simply go ahead and change one of this functions without an impact analysis. For one time functions or functions used by a few related rules, usually small in terms of lines of code, then I recommend them to be implemented inline in the DRL file, close to the rule that uses them. If the function and/or rules need to change, the developer/BA has all he needs right in front of him.

   But, again, talking in general is different than looking at the actual problem/use case. When making things concrete, only the team involved in the project can choose the appropriate path.

   Regarding bugs, every new release includes all fixes made previously in binary format. You can also download binary snapshots from Hudson. Regarding Maven, it seems they broke backward compatibility with maven plugins that we need when they released 2.1. So, to build drools you need maven 2.0.9 or 2.0.10. I did not heard about any problems with these 2 releases of maven.

   Edson


2009/6/26 Chris Richmond <crichmond@referentia.com>

I completely agree with everything you said and I feel I should be trying to do things in that manner myself…hence, my hesitence to create static java classes/methods for use as function libraries and rely instead on defined functions in the rule if possible(from an earlier discussion).

 

I have been reading on the ruleflow recently and discovered that I in fact, may need to be using some fo those features isntead of a fusion-centric approach I was taking before, since I have some processes that need to be fired off during rule execution and take time to complete.   Can fusion and ruleflow be used seamlessly together..or more specifically are there samples containing the melding of two.  I am essentialy dealing with periodic sensor data incoming(hence my decicion to examine fusion as the solution ) but have since realized that there is a worklfow or process that needs to be kicked off and follow up processes that need to be completed in order to make further decisions on the objects in working memory(which ruleflow sounds ideal for).  

 

Also, are the bug fixes available in binary download or only in src?  I have had a hell of a time getting maven to work for me.

 

Thanks very much,


Chris

 

From: rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:40 AM


To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] firing explicit rules or agend-groups

 

 
   Sorry for the short answer... busy day.

   The main problem with agenda filter is that it is defined in application code and so creates a dependency in the rules from the application code. So, you break one of the biggest advantages of rules that is to have a separate lifecycle for rules. There are other small things too, but that is IMO the most limiting. I use agenda filters only for unit testing and debugging.

   My preferred approach is to model the rules in a way that they only fire when they should fire, using ruleflow, agenda-groups and other "rule features" as opposed to have the application messing with the agenda.

   []s
   Edson


2009/6/25 Chris Richmond <crichmond@referentia.com>

Ok…well when the recognized expert says something is not their preferred approach, it begs the question …what is your preferred approach for handling this?

 

Thanks,


Chris

 

From: rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 2:30 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] firing explicit rules or agend-groups

 


   Chris,

   Although not my preferred approach, you can use agenda filters as a parameter to fireAllRules().

   []s
   Edson

2009/6/24 Chris Richmond <crichmond@referentia.com>

Hello,

 

I thought I had encountered a sample of performing a:

 

session.fireAllRules();

 

except on explicit rules or at least on a specific agenda group…but I cannot seem to locate that in the API for sessions….did I miss something or did I imagine something before?

 

 

Thanks,

Chris


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




--
 Edson Tirelli
 JBoss Drools Core Development
 JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com


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




--
 Edson Tirelli
 JBoss Drools Core Development
 JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com


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




--
 Edson Tirelli
 JBoss Drools Core Development
 JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com