[rules-users] Rules Engine always running
Edson Tirelli
tirelli at post.com
Wed Mar 28 14:21:16 EDT 2007
Yes, that is standard approach.
Just don't share the same working memory among multiple threads (seems
you are not doing that, so just reinforcing). The rule base may be shared,
no problem.
[]s
Edson
2007/3/28, Jones, Alan R <alan.r.jones at boeing.com>:
>
> This is actually very close to the approach I am going to try:
>
> The caching is replaced by an object representing/encapsulating a given
> rulebase created as a new/separate thread. A reference to said object is
> registered (cached?). When a Fact comes along, the appropriate
> rulebase/object is looked up and the fact is fed to it (the object has a
> method that takes the fact and asserts it into a new working memory),
> then the object fires the rule. Does this approach make sense?
>
> Thanks,
>
> aj
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Edson Tirelli [mailto:tirelli at post.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:03 AM
> *To:* Rules Users List
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Rules Engine always running
>
> Alan,
>
> If you have different sets of rules that you want to apply in different
> circunstances, you can compile and cache each of this sets as a rulebase
> (note that the set may contain a single rule).
> Then, for each fact that arrives, you decide which is the rulebase that
> applies to it, create a working memory for that rulebase, assert the fact,
> run the rule and throw the working memory away (as, you mentioned you don't
> want this working memory anymore).
>
> You can, of course, work with a single rulebase and keep adding and
> removing rules from it, but it will be more expensive to handle that for the
> use case you described.
>
> If you are able to detail your use case, we may be able to help you
> more.
>
> Regards,
> Edson
>
>
> 2007/3/28, Jones, Alan R <alan.r.jones at boeing.com>:
> >
> > Yes, some of these things are being considered. Thanks for your input ,
> > it has been helpful!
> >
> >
> >
> > aj
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Anstis, Michael (M.) [mailto:manstis1 at ford.com]
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:12 AM
> > *To:* Rules Users List
> > *Subject:* RE: [rules-users] Rules Engine always running
> >
> > I assume rules are dynamically added to the Rulebase and that there is
> > not a static set of rules associated with each application release?
> >
> > I believe new rules can be dynamically added to the existing Rulebase -
> > whether existing WM's inherit the new rules I don't know. Agenda Groups
> > could provide the control of which groups of rules fire.
> >
> > Also, if you retain FactHandles to all asserted Facts depending upon the
> > decision made by the component the legacy Facts can be retracted before the
> > new rule is activated.
> >
> > I assume you'll also have some "Rule life-cycle" control in place?
> > Either removing rules from a Rulebase (I believe to be possible) or
> > destroying redundant WM's (as per your proposal).
> >
> > Sorry, this doesn't add much more value - although input from more
> > experienced users is welcomed.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org [mailto:
> > rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Jones, Alan R
> > *Sent:* 28 March 2007 15:29
> > *To:* Rules Users List
> > *Subject:* RE: [rules-users] Rules Engine always running
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Thanks for you rresponse, however I'm not sure based on what we are
> > wanting to do that we should use a single working memory. The proposed approach
> > is:
> >
> > a rule has been added to the rule base, then a Fact (object) comes along
> > and we instantiate a working memory and fire all rules relative to this
> > working memory. The outcome from Drools is evaluated by another sw
> > component, and it is decided to try a different rule with a given Fact.
> >
> > So, a new rule, rule #2, comes along with slightly different specifics
> > on what it is supposed to match, so it is added to the rule base. Then, Fact
> > #2 comes down the pipeline. A new working memory #2 is instantiated against
> > the existing rulebase, Fact #2 is asserted, and fireAllRules() called
> > against the working memory #2.
> >
> > The desired behavior is that only rule #2 is actually kicked into action
> > (against Fact #2), since the first rule and fact is done with. We don't want
> > the previous rules/facts in the rule base operating any longer.
> >
> > Maybe I just don't know enough about the proper application of rules
> > when solving particular problems to ask the right questions -- my task is to
> > expose JBoss rules as a service so I'm trying to understand a bit about it's
> > operation.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > aj
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > Alan R Jones
> > Boeing S&IS Mission Systems
> > Denver Engineering Center (BDEC)
> > 303.307.3415
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Anstis, Michael (M.) [mailto:manstis1 at ford.com]
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:23 AM
> > *To:* Rules Users List
> > *Subject:* RE: [rules-users] Rules Engine always running
> >
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > A working memory is in essence always available\running whilst there is
> > a reference to it; other than the "main" thread (on which your public static
> > void main executes) you don't need to use other threads (but this obviously
> > depends upon what exactly you're trying to achieve). The Rulebase can
> > contain all of your production rules (in fact this is probably the
> > recommended approach as, assuming some rules share a common pattern, the
> > resulting RETE network will be optimised); and you can feed incoming objects
> > (Facts in JBoss Rules terms) into one working memory created from the one
> > Rulebase. As objects are asserted patterns (LHS) defining the rules are
> > matched and, once fully matched, rules are activated for execution (RHS). Unfortunately
> > I don't have any experience of JBoss Rules in a multi-threaded environment.
> >
> > For example:-
> >
> > public static void main(String args[]) {
> >
> > Rulebase rb = loadRuleBase();
> > WorkingMemory wm = rb.newWorkingMemory();
> >
> > while (!exit()) {
> >
> > Collection c = getObjectsFromWherever();
> > assertObjectsIntoWorkingMemory(c, wm);
> > wm.fireAllRules();
> >
> > try {
> > Thread.sleep(1000);
> > }
> > catch(InterruptedException ie) {
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > With kind regards,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org [mailto:
> > rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Jones, Alan R
> > *Sent:* 27 March 2007 19:05
> > *To:* Rules Users List
> > *Subject:* [rules-users] Rules Engine always running
> >
> > Kind of new to JBoss Rules...I'm trying to fiigure out from what i have
> > read so far if the following scenario is possible:
> >
> >
> > 1. Start up an instance of a working memory (say, with dummy rule?) and
> > keep it running, feeding it data objects to operate on from time to time.
> > 2. As needed, kick off as many instance of working memory within the
> > single rule base (in a separate thread) and keep them going as in step 1
> >
> > The idea is to keep the rules engine running constantly, but kick off
> > separate working-memory threads for the injection of various incoming rule
> > sets and the objects those rule sets work on as needed. Can anyone provide
> > some insight to this? Pointers to examples, perhaps?
> >
> >
> >
> > Alan J.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> Office: +55 11 3124-6000
> Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3124-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070328/9c4cc5cd/attachment.html
More information about the rules-users
mailing list