4:36 a.m.
Hi,
I am novice in Drools. Up to my following problem nearly everything worked
fine for me.
In my case I thought mixing the two group mentioned is the right way, and it
could be the right way if I use it in a correct way. The problem is that I
don't get a result.
...
rule "pets"
salience 20
ruleflow-group "pets"
activation-group "categories"
when
$tr : Translog($trpid : pid)
$p : Product(pid == $trpid, $pid : pid, $price : price, $brand :
brand)
$pcat : ProductCategory(pid == $pid, $cid : cid)
$cat : Category(cid == $cid, cname == "pets", $cname : cname)
then
insert(new Recommendation($pid, $price, $brand, $cname));
end
rule "remove everything except pets"
salience 19
ruleflow-group "pets"
when
$recomm : Recommendation((cname == "food") || (cname == "vegetable")
||
(cname == "drinks"))
then
retract($recomm)
end
rule "food"
salience 16
ruleflow-group "food"
activation-group "categories"
when
$tr : Translog($trpid : pid)
$p : Product(pid == $trpid, $pid : pid, $price : price, $brand :
brand)
$pcat : ProductCategory(pid == $pid, $cid : cid)
$cat : Category(cid == $cid, cname == "food", $cname : cname)
then
insert(new Recommendation($pid, $price, $brand, $cname));
end
rule "remove everything except food"
salience 15
ruleflow-group "food"
when
$recomm : Recommendation((cname == "vegetable") || (cname ==
"drinks"))
then
retract($recomm)
end
...
The idea is that I firstly add a new object (Recommendation) to my working
memory. After that I check if there are already existing
Recommendation-objects. Such objects that are from a less important category
should now be removed. The priority attribute is the /cname/ (category
name). So in the end there can be more Recommendation objects of one
category but never of different categories.
I request the result in the following way (perhaps this is incorrect):
rule "show recomms"
salience 5
when
$recomm : Recommendation()
then
System.out.println($recomm);
end
So the result is an empty console, but with my test data there should be two
Recommendation objects in my working memory after terminating.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/mixing-activation-group-and-ruleflow-gr...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
5:41 a.m.
I'm not sure what the initial set of facts is,butI'm assuming that you
have any number of potentially matching quadruplets
Translog - Product - ProductCategory - Category.
For good measure, I add
declare Superiors
cname: String
superiors: Set<String>
end
for defining, for each category, the more important categories: you'll
need to insert three static facts.
Doing away with all this non-declarative salience and flow you can now
make do with two rules:
rule "insert recommendation"
when
$tr: Translog($trpid : pid)
$p: Product(pid == $trpid, $pid : pid, $price : price, $brand : brand)
$pcat: ProductCategory(pid == $pid, $cid : cid)
$cat: Category(cid == $cid, cname == "pets", $cname : cname)
not ( Recommendation( $xname: cname )
and
Superiors( cname == $cname, superiors contains $xname ) )
then
insert(new Recommendation($pid, $price, $brand, $cname));
end
rule "remove low priorities"
when
$recomm: Recommendation( $cname: cname )
exists( Recommendation( $xname: cname )
and
Superiors( cname == $cname, superiors contains $xname ) )
then
retract($recomm)
end
And you may add a low-salience background rule for extracting the results.
rule "show recomms"
salience -999
when
$recomm : Recommendation()
then
System.out.println($recomm);
end
Untested!
-W
(Who eats "pets"????)
On 01/10/2012, raffi <christian.koehler(a)s2008.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
Hi,
I am novice in Drools. Up to my following problem nearly everything worked
fine for me.
In my case I thought mixing the two group mentioned is the right way, and
it
could be the right way if I use it in a correct way. The problem is that I
don't get a result.
...
rule "pets"
salience 20
ruleflow-group "pets"
activation-group "categories"
when
$tr : Translog($trpid : pid)
$p : Product(pid == $trpid, $pid : pid, $price : price, $brand :
brand)
$pcat : ProductCategory(pid == $pid, $cid : cid)
$cat : Category(cid == $cid, cname == "pets", $cname : cname)
then
insert(new Recommendation($pid, $price, $brand, $cname));
end
rule "remove everything except pets"
salience 19
ruleflow-group "pets"
when
$recomm : Recommendation((cname == "food") || (cname ==
"vegetable") ||
(cname == "drinks"))
then
retract($recomm)
end
rule "food"
salience 16
ruleflow-group "food"
activation-group "categories"
when
$tr : Translog($trpid : pid)
$p : Product(pid == $trpid, $pid : pid, $price : price, $brand :
brand)
$pcat : ProductCategory(pid == $pid, $cid : cid)
$cat : Category(cid == $cid, cname == "food", $cname : cname)
then
insert(new Recommendation($pid, $price, $brand, $cname));
end
rule "remove everything except food"
salience 15
ruleflow-group "food"
when
$recomm : Recommendation((cname == "vegetable") || (cname ==
"drinks"))
then
retract($recomm)
end
...
The idea is that I firstly add a new object (Recommendation) to my working
memory. After that I check if there are already existing
Recommendation-objects. Such objects that are from a less important
category
should now be removed. The priority attribute is the /cname/ (category
name). So in the end there can be more Recommendation objects of one
category but never of different categories.
I request the result in the following way (perhaps this is incorrect):
rule "show recomms"
salience 5
when
$recomm : Recommendation()
then
System.out.println($recomm);
end
So the result is an empty console, but with my test data there should be
two
Recommendation objects in my working memory after terminating.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/mixing-activation-group-and-ruleflow-gr...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
4:07 a.m.
Hi and thank you for the approach. There are points I don't really understand
in this solution. I have to create n instances (depending on number of
categories) of Superiors class in my main java file in the way
/Superior sup = new Superior("pets", null)/?
How is the set superior filled? I don't really understand the part
/superiors contains $xname/.
Thank you
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/mixing-activation-group-and-ruleflow-gr...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
5:05 a.m.
After I saw that there is the possibility for show logging in console I used
it. And I tested another approach. Reading the logging I saw, that the
output with the help of
rule "show recomms"
salience -999
when
$recomm : Recommendation()
then
System.out.println($recomm);
end
distorts the result. Objects are shown and after that are correctly
retracted.
How can I get only the Recommendation instances from working memory in my
main java class?
I think it has to be something with the /getObjects/ method for my ksession
variable!?
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/mixing-activation-group-and-ruleflow-gr...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
5:10 a.m.
On 02/10/2012, raffi <christian.koehler(a)s2008.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
How can I get only the Recommendation instances from working memory
in my
main java class?
I think it has to be something with the /getObjects/ method for my ksession
variable!?
Use a query. getObjects() returns all WM fact objects, but the query
will give you just the Recommendataion objects.
5:15 a.m.
On 02/10/2012, raffi <christian.koehler(a)s2008.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
Hi and thank you for the approach. There are points I don't
really
understand
in this solution. I have to create n instances (depending on number of
categories) of Superiors class in my main java file in the way
/Superior sup = new Superior("pets", null)/?
How is the set superior filled?
You should do this in Java, using a POJO class, inserting right after
session start. You do know how to add elements to a Set<String>?
I don't really understand the part
/superiors contains $xname/.
This is DRL for calling a collection's contains() method, i.e.:
x.getSuperior().contains( $xname )
-W
Thank you
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/mixing-activation-group-and-ruleflow-gr...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
3:51 a.m.
Hi.
As suspected the way of showing the output was not optimal. I now get the
objects with a query, as you said:
query "recomms"
recomm : Recommendation()
end
And it shows that my currently solution is working in the way it should. My
inserting rules now look like this:
rule "pets"
salience 20
activation-group "categories"
when
$tr : Translog($trpid : pid)
$p : Product(pid == $trpid, $pid : pid, $price : price, $brand :
brand)
$pcat : ProductCategory(pid == $pid, $cid : cid)
$cat : Category(cid == $cid, cname == "pets", $cname : cname)
then
insert(new Recommendation($pid, $price, $brand, $cname));
end
rule "food"
salience 20
activation-group "categories"
when
$tr : Translog($trpid : pid)
$p : Product(pid == $trpid, $pid : pid, $price : price, $brand :
brand)
$pcat : ProductCategory(pid == $pid, $cid : cid)
$cat : Category(cid == $cid, cname == "food", $cname : cname)
not Recommendation(cname == "pets")
then
insert(new Recommendation($pid, $price, $brand, $cname));
end
...
After all transaction data was read in I call the remove rules in a
descending order:
rule "remove everything except pets"
salience 19
when
exists Recommendation(cname == "pets")
$recomm : Recommendation(cname == "food" || cname == "vegetable" ||
cname
== "drinks")
then
retract($recomm);
end
rule "remove everything except food"
salience 18
when
exists Recommendation(cname == "food")
$recomm : Recommendation(cname == "vegetable" || cname == "drinks")
then
retract($recomm);
end
...
I think there is space for optimization.
Is there a huge speed advantage in your solution laune in comparison to mine
(because I have far more rules) in case of lets say 10.000 master data facts
in working memory?
Thank you
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/mixing-activation-group-and-ruleflow-gr...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
10:13 a.m.
I think that my solution inhibits the creation of useless (i.e., to be
removed later) Recommendation facts, which ought to be better than
creating all and removing the superseded ones later (as I think your
latest rule set does).
Expressing preference though data is "cleaner" than using salience.
Consider what happens if the order of preference changes: you'd have
to rewrite rules (salience); I just change the creation of my Superior
facts. Also, I think I need less rules, which is always good. - But
only a benchmark with representative data is decisive.
-W
On 04/10/2012, raffi <christian.koehler(a)s2008.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
Hi.
As suspected the way of showing the output was not optimal. I now get the
objects with a query, as you said:
query "recomms"
recomm : Recommendation()
end
And it shows that my currently solution is working in the way it should. My
inserting rules now look like this:
rule "pets"
salience 20
activation-group "categories"
when
$tr : Translog($trpid : pid)
$p : Product(pid == $trpid, $pid : pid, $price : price, $brand :
brand)
$pcat : ProductCategory(pid == $pid, $cid : cid)
$cat : Category(cid == $cid, cname == "pets", $cname : cname)
then
insert(new Recommendation($pid, $price, $brand, $cname));
end
rule "food"
salience 20
activation-group "categories"
when
$tr : Translog($trpid : pid)
$p : Product(pid == $trpid, $pid : pid, $price : price, $brand :
brand)
$pcat : ProductCategory(pid == $pid, $cid : cid)
$cat : Category(cid == $cid, cname == "food", $cname : cname)
not Recommendation(cname == "pets")
then
insert(new Recommendation($pid, $price, $brand, $cname));
end
...
After all transaction data was read in I call the remove rules in a
descending order:
rule "remove everything except pets"
salience 19
when
exists Recommendation(cname == "pets")
$recomm : Recommendation(cname == "food" || cname == "vegetable" ||
cname
== "drinks")
then
retract($recomm);
end
rule "remove everything except food"
salience 18
when
exists Recommendation(cname == "food")
$recomm : Recommendation(cname == "vegetable" || cname ==
"drinks")
then
retract($recomm);
end
...
I think there is space for optimization.
Is there a huge speed advantage in your solution laune in comparison to
mine
(because I have far more rules) in case of lets say 10.000 master data
facts
in working memory?
Thank you
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/mixing-activation-group-and-ruleflow-gr...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
3:07 a.m.
Thank you so far.
I also noticed that my solution is in some way unefficient if there are a
lot of categories. I not only have to change rules saliences, I do have to
change the /not Recommendation(cname == "pets"...)/ lines in every rule,
too.
So I have a new approach leave out the removing of Recommendation facts. The
solution is near yours, laune. But I have a new problem now. I added a value
variable (double) to my Recommendation class. I also added a new class that
holds a HashMap (<String, Double>). Where String is the name of the category
and the double value is dependent on the category (higher prioriry, higher
value). And I now like to calculate the value for each Recommendation that
was added.
rule "calculate recomm value"
salience 15
when
$recomm : Recommendation($cname : cname, $recomm_value : recommValue)
$map : HashMap(FilterCriteria.categories)
then
modify ($recomm) {
setRecommValue($recomm_value * $map.get($cname))
}
end
But eclipse says: /The operator * is undefined for the argument type(s)
double, Object/
Using $map.get("test") in a normal java class works perfect and return the
expected double value. Where is the mistake in the rule?
Thank you
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/mixing-activation-group-and-ruleflow-gr...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
6:37 a.m.
Drools' DRL doesn't know about generics the way Java does.
Cast $map.get($cname).
-W
On 05/10/2012, raffi <christian.koehler(a)s2008.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:
Thank you so far.
I also noticed that my solution is in some way unefficient if there are a
lot of categories. I not only have to change rules saliences, I do have to
change the /not Recommendation(cname == "pets"...)/ lines in every rule,
too.
So I have a new approach leave out the removing of Recommendation facts.
The
solution is near yours, laune. But I have a new problem now. I added a
value
variable (double) to my Recommendation class. I also added a new class that
holds a HashMap (<String, Double>). Where String is the name of the
category
and the double value is dependent on the category (higher prioriry, higher
value). And I now like to calculate the value for each Recommendation that
was added.
rule "calculate recomm value"
salience 15
when
$recomm : Recommendation($cname : cname, $recomm_value : recommValue)
$map : HashMap(FilterCriteria.categories)
then
modify ($recomm) {
setRecommValue($recomm_value * $map.get($cname))
}
end
But eclipse says: /The operator * is undefined for the argument type(s)
double, Object/
Using $map.get("test") in a normal java class works perfect and return the
expected double value. Where is the mistake in the rule?
Thank you
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/mixing-activation-group-and-ruleflow-gr...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
4435
days inactive
4439
days old
9 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
raffi -
Wolfgang Laun