3:53 p.m.
Before I start do explain my problem I should say that I have already
searched through the older posts and found similiar problems but not exactly
the following one:
My Application has multiple RuleFiles (*.drl each with its own package)
which can be dynamically added/removed. Based on a context (lets say String
foo = "bar") only the rulepackage which fits to "bar" should be
executed.
Usually that isnt a problem, because drools just executes the rules with the
fitting facts. But in this case all the rules in the rulepackages check the
same type of facts.
Currently I am using an AgendaFilter (if rulepackage == xyz { accept =
true}) to achieve this goal, but firstly it doesnt effect inserting of facts
(LHS of every rule is executed) and secondly I have read that it should only
be used for unit testing, since it couples java code with rule behavior.
While reading older posts I have found two possible solutions that could
work:
1. Using a contextObject which has foo and is checked in the first rule of
each rulepackage. This first rule and the remaining rules in the rulepackage
have the same agenda group. So if the first rule doesnt fit, the other rules
wont be executed, either (does this really work? ;)).
2. Putting every rulepackge in its own rulebase. Then I would check the
context in java and execute the fitting rulebase.
Let's say I have about 300 *.drl files. Which solution would be better?
Maybe there is a better solution 3) of which I didnt think yet. Then dont
hesitate and tell it to me :)
Thanks in advance for any help.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools4-Filter-executed-rules-by-drl-fi...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
5:25 p.m.
magendo wrote:
1. Using a contextObject which has foo and is checked in the first rule of
each rulepackage. This first rule and the remaining rules in the
rulepackage have the same agenda group. So if the first rule doesnt fit,
the other rules wont be executed, either (does this really work? ;)).
Well, that doesnt even seem to work. Here are 2 examples I tried out:
rule "one"
auto-focus
agenda-group "foobar"
when
foo != bar
then
drools.getWorkingMemory().clearAgendaGroup("foobar");
end
rule "all the other rules"
agend-group "foobar"
when some conditions
then some consequences
end
This way the "some conditions" part is still executed in the lhs of "all
the
other rules", altough I cleared the agendagroup "foobar" (I guess that
happens because the rhs is only executed after fireallrules()).
There must be a way to affect the lhs of the other rules before
fireallrules() is executed?!
Btw. my LHS is quite expensive thats why I dont wont to execute it 100 times
when only the right one is needed.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools4-Filter-executed-rules-by-drl-fi...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
5:29 p.m.
In your scenario, I believe the best (better) approach would be to use a
control fact (first in your RHS). Your context can become a Fact itself:-
rule "one"
when
Foo( value == "bar" )
...other patterns
then
...do your thang
end
rule "two"
when
Foo( value == "bar" )
...other patterns
then
...do your other thang
end
On 19 July 2011 16:25, magendo <robert.heisenberg(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
magendo wrote:
>
> 1. Using a contextObject which has foo and is checked in the first rule
of
> each rulepackage. This first rule and the remaining rules in the
> rulepackage have the same agenda group. So if the first rule doesnt fit,
> the other rules wont be executed, either (does this really work? ;)).
>
Well, that doesnt even seem to work. Here are 2 examples I tried out:
rule "one"
auto-focus
agenda-group "foobar"
when
foo != bar
then
drools.getWorkingMemory().clearAgendaGroup("foobar");
end
rule "all the other rules"
agend-group "foobar"
when some conditions
then some consequences
end
This way the "some conditions" part is still executed in the lhs of "all
the
other rules", altough I cleared the agendagroup "foobar" (I guess that
happens because the rhs is only executed after fireallrules()).
There must be a way to affect the lhs of the other rules before
fireallrules() is executed?!
Btw. my LHS is quite expensive thats why I dont wont to execute it 100
times
when only the right one is needed.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools4-Filter-executed-rules-by-drl-fi...
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
5:46 p.m.
In my opinion, for 300 drl files, the better is to use a specific KB for
each DRL (or some KAgent).
This way you don't have to pollute your rules with control facts (and
you can eventually re-use some part of DRL files into multiple context
KB), and the RETE is tightened to the strict minimum (no eval of useless
constraints).
Moreover, I am not sure if drools compiler can really handle some
removal or addition of rules dynamically in a existing KB without having
to recompile all rules (so keeping up-to-date a big KB can be costly).
If you (still) want to use your solution 1 (ie control facts), you can
also use rule inheritance (which make a rule inherit the conditions of
another "parent" rule, and the parent rule will contain the check on the
control fact) :
rule context-rule
enabled false // this rule won't fire by itself
when
Context(task = "bar")
then
// not used anyway
end
rule X extends context-rule
when
// specific conditions
then
// fired when specific conditions AND context-rule's conditions
are met
end
10:29 a.m.
Thanks for your answers.
The context fact thing would work, but it is really polluting the rules and
makes a lot of unnecessary constraint checks. Furthermore the extends is not
implemented in Drools 4 or I am blind (maybe it would be a good idea to
switch to drools 5 anyway...).
So I think I will go with the one drl per rulebase solution.
@manstis: Could you explain why you think the control fact solution is
better?
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools4-Filter-executed-rules-by-drl-fi...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
11:32 a.m.
It was just a feeling, but Vincent's words from (presumably) experience
gives the individual rulebase option more credence.
On 20 July 2011 09:29, magendo <robert.heisenberg(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks for your answers.
The context fact thing would work, but it is really polluting the rules and
makes a lot of unnecessary constraint checks. Furthermore the extends is
not
implemented in Drools 4 or I am blind (maybe it would be a good idea to
switch to drools 5 anyway...).
So I think I will go with the one drl per rulebase solution.
@manstis: Could you explain why you think the control fact solution is
better?
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools4-Filter-executed-rules-by-drl-fi...
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
12:25 p.m.
Control facts could be a good solution if a execution (of rules) can use some multiple
DRL, and if you are using a lot of facts.
For example, if you want to do DRL1 and then DRL5 (because of some logic) on the same
facts, in that order, you can add "control rules" to your KB that set/update the
Context fact according to some conditions.
Note that you can do the same with multiple KB, but then you have to re-insert the objects
from one session to another (but it is not so complex, nor so costly).
But for the number of DRL you have, I really think that cutting them in KB will be better.
Moreover you can implement a "big chief controller", that stores the KB in a
map, lazily complied when needed. This way, you may not have the whole 300 KB in memory
...
And you can even distribute the KB in distributed Agents, and implement the "big
chief controller" with drools (with fusion?) to store some logic about launching the
suitable KB according to the event you get, or chain KB, or whatever you can imagine.
----- Mail original -----
De: "Michael Anstis" <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
À: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Envoyé: Mercredi 20 Juillet 2011 11:32:12
Objet: Re: [rules-users] [Drools4]: Filter executed rules by *.drl file
It was just a feeling, but Vincent's words from (presumably) experience gives the
individual rulebase option more credence.
On 20 July 2011 09:29, magendo < robert.heisenberg(a)yahoo.com > wrote:
Thanks for your answers.
The context fact thing would work, but it is really polluting the rules and
makes a lot of unnecessary constraint checks. Furthermore the extends is not
implemented in Drools 4 or I am blind (maybe it would be a good idea to
switch to drools 5 anyway...).
So I think I will go with the one drl per rulebase solution.
@manstis: Could you explain why you think the control fact solution is
better?
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools4-Filter-executed-rules-by-drl-fi...
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
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
4663
days inactive
4664
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
magendo -
Michael Anstis -
Vincent LEGENDRE -
Vincent Legendre