[rules-users] rules-users Digest, Vol 43, Issue 60
Swindells, Thomas
TSwindells at nds.com
Fri Jun 11 08:40:56 EDT 2010
Short answer is you don't need to. Rules are declarative not procedural, it is up to the rules engine to optimize how the rules are fired, if it knows that rule no 4 means that none of the other rules can be fired then it won't evaluate them.
Thomas
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-
> bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Nikhil S. Kulkarni
> Sent: 11 June 2010 13:37
> To: 'rules-users at lists.jboss.org'
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] rules-users Digest, Vol 43, Issue 60
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Thomas for Reply for Re: [rules-users] How to break the rules execution
> if one has
> been satisfied ??
> My Question is like in Java as we have break statement so that we can
> terminate the loop,
> So if there are 1000 rules activated and Rule fired is Rule no 4 then How will
> I come out of this
> Immediately in order to save time of rules execution.
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Nikhil S. Kulkarni
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-
> bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of rules-users-request at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 5:16 PM
> To: rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> Subject: rules-users Digest, Vol 43, Issue 60
>
> Send rules-users mailing list submissions to
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rules-users-request at lists.jboss.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rules-users-owner at lists.jboss.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of rules-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Fwd: [drools-user] Write Drools Books - Packt Publishing.
> (Mark Proctor)
> 2. How to break the rules execution if one has been satisfied ??
> (Nikhil S. Kulkarni)
> 3. Re: How to break the rules execution if one has been
> satisfied ?? (Swindells, Thomas)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:07:43 +0100
> From: Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org>
> Subject: [rules-users] Fwd: [drools-user] Write Drools Books - Packt
> Publishing.
> To: Rules Users List <rules-users at lists.jboss.org>, Rules Dev List
> <rules-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID: <4C1218FF.8000608 at codehaus.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> -------- Original Message --------Kshipra Singh <kshipras at packtpub.com>
>
> Hello Everybody,
> I represent Packt Publishing, the publishers of computer related books.
> We are planning to expand our range of Drools books and are currently
> inviting Drools experts interested in writing books for Packt.
> We do not expect our authors to have any past writing experience. All
> that you need to write for Packt is an expert knowledge of your subject,
> a passion to share it with others and an ability to communicate clearly
> in English.
> So, if you love Drools and fancy writing a book, here's an opportunity
> for you! Send us your book ideas at author at packtpub.com. Even if you
> don't have a book idea and are simply interested in writing a book, we
> are keen to hear from you!
> More details about this opportunity are available at :
> http://authors.packtpub.com/content/packt-invites-drools-book-ideas-authors
> Thanks
> Kshipra Singh
> Author Relationship Manager
> Packt Publishing
> www.PacktPub.com <http://www.PacktPub.com>
>
> Skype: kshiprasingh15
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/packtauthors
>
> Interested in becoming an author? Visit http://authors.packtpub.com for
> all the information you need about writing for Packt.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-
> users/attachments/20100611/909f7724/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:57:09 +0530
> From: "Nikhil S. Kulkarni" <Nikhil.Kulkarni at mastek.com>
> Subject: [rules-users] How to break the rules execution if one has
> been satisfied ??
> To: "rules-users at lists.jboss.org" <rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID:
> <697B15BDCE7BED458A324B1B4D09463D4CE6DBBF57 at IND-MHP1MCL001.mastek.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi,
>
> In rules, in a particular rule set, all the when's are executed. In technical
> terms, the activation is first created. For all the rules in a rule set the
> when condition is first evaluated and if the when condition is satisfied for
> any rule then the rule is marked as ready to fire. Once all the when part for
> all the rules are evaluated then all the ones that were marked for fire are
> fired.
> The performance issue that if there are some 1500 rows. Hence, when the rule
> is fired there are 1500 when conditions that are firstly checked. And only
> after this the then part is fired. There is no way to break the when checks on
> successful satisfaction of a particular rule when.
>
> Example:
> If I have say a group of 1000 rules as mentioned below
>
> Rule_1
> Salience 1000
> When
> Some_Conditions_1
> Then
> Some_Actions_1
>
> Rule_2
> Salience 999
> When
> Some_Conditions_2
> Then
> Some_Actions_2
> .
> .
> .
> Rule_1000
> Salience 1
> When
> Some_Conditions_1000
> Then
> Some_Actions_1000
>
> Let's assume that Some_conditions_2 = true
> Now even though I have an ordering using salience, the rule engine will still
> execute all the when conditions (Some_Conditions_1 .. Some_Conditions_1000)
>
> Is it possible for me to break this when evaluation even if one has been
> satisfied?
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Nikhil S. Kulkarni
>
> MASTEK LTD.
> Mastek is in NASSCOM's 'India Top 20' Software Service Exporters List.
> In the US, we're called MAJESCOMASTEK
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not that of
> Mastek Limited, unless specifically indicated to that effect. Mastek Limited
> does not accept any responsibility or liability for it. This e-mail and
> attachments (if any) transmitted with it are confidential and/or privileged
> and solely for the use of the intended person or entity to which it is
> addressed. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of or
> taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities
> other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This e-mail and its
> attachments have been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. It is the
> responsibility of the recipient to run the virus check on e-mails and
> attachments before opening them. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly delete this e-mail from desktop and server.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-
> users/attachments/20100611/2482cf26/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:46:01 +0100
> From: "Swindells, Thomas" <TSwindells at nds.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] How to break the rules execution if one has
> been satisfied ??
> To: Rules Users List <rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID:
> <DAC86F5F3B84F14088F0DB16092558CA0855AE8E0A at UKMA1.UK.NDS.COM>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> You technical description isn't at all accurate.
> You need to read up on Rete Trees, I'm still a bit vague on them myself but a
> hopefully slightly more accurate description is as follows:
> When the rules are compiled each of their conditions is converted to a node on
> the graph. If rules share the same initial set of conditions then they will
> share those nodes in the tree. These nodes contain references to the data in
> the working memory that they match against. When an object is added or
> updated in working memory then the knowledge of this allows just the relevant
> nodes to be re-evaluated trickling down the tree. If a leaf node is reached
> with a particular set of Objects then this means that the rule can then be
> placed on the activation queue with that set of data.
>
> This Rete graph is designed to solve the problem you are describing which is
> why we have a rules engine rather than doing the naive procedural
> implementation of 'firing rules'. Of course if all your rules are disjoint
> but rely on the same set of Objects then there isn't any choice but to
> evaluate all the rules, after all they may all do different things and
> normally you want multiple rules to fire.
>
> How you write your rules can also have a massive impact on performance and the
> shape of the graph (which you can see in eclipse), are you worrying about this
> purely from a theoretical viewpoint or are you having a concrete performance
> problem?
>
> Hope this helps your understanding,
>
> Thomas
>
> From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-
> bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Nikhil S. Kulkarni
> Sent: 11 June 2010 12:27
> To: rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> Subject: [rules-users] How to break the rules execution if one has been
> satisfied ??
>
> Hi,
>
> In rules, in a particular rule set, all the when's are executed. In technical
> terms, the activation is first created. For all the rules in a rule set the
> when condition is first evaluated and if the when condition is satisfied for
> any rule then the rule is marked as ready to fire. Once all the when part for
> all the rules are evaluated then all the ones that were marked for fire are
> fired.
> The performance issue that if there are some 1500 rows. Hence, when the rule
> is fired there are 1500 when conditions that are firstly checked. And only
> after this the then part is fired. There is no way to break the when checks on
> successful satisfaction of a particular rule when.
>
> Example:
> If I have say a group of 1000 rules as mentioned below
>
> Rule_1
> Salience 1000
> When
> Some_Conditions_1
> Then
> Some_Actions_1
>
> Rule_2
> Salience 999
> When
> Some_Conditions_2
> Then
> Some_Actions_2
> .
> .
> .
> Rule_1000
> Salience 1
> When
> Some_Conditions_1000
> Then
> Some_Actions_1000
>
> Let's assume that Some_conditions_2 = true
> Now even though I have an ordering using salience, the rule engine will still
> execute all the when conditions (Some_Conditions_1 .. Some_Conditions_1000)
>
> Is it possible for me to break this when evaluation even if one has been
> satisfied?
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Nikhil S. Kulkarni
>
>
>
> MASTEK LTD.
> Mastek is in NASSCOM's 'India Top 20' Software Service Exporters List.
> In the US, we're called MAJESCOMASTEK
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not that of
> Mastek Limited, unless specifically indicated to that effect. Mastek Limited
> does not accept any responsibility or liability for it. This e-mail and
> attachments (if any) transmitted with it are confidential and/or privileged
> and solely for the use of the intended person or entity to which it is
> addressed. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of or
> taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities
> other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This e-mail and its
> attachments have been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. It is the
> responsibility of the recipient to run the virus check on e-mails and
> attachments before opening them. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly delete this e-mail from desktop and server.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> ******************************************************************************
> ********
> This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have
> received this message in error, please immediately notify the
> postmaster at nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The
> content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for
> employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not
> print this e-mail unless necessary.
>
> NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX,
> United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no.
> 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00
> ******************************************************************************
> ********
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-
> users/attachments/20100611/0da1a60f/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
> End of rules-users Digest, Vol 43, Issue 60
> *******************************************
>
>
> MASTEK LTD.
> Mastek is in NASSCOM's 'India Top 20' Software Service Exporters List.
> In the US, we're called MAJESCOMASTEK
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not that of
> Mastek Limited, unless specifically indicated to that effect. Mastek Limited
> does not accept any responsibility or liability for it. This e-mail and
> attachments (if any) transmitted with it are confidential and/or privileged
> and solely for the use of the intended person or entity to which it is
> addressed. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of or
> taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities
> other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This e-mail and its
> attachments have been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. It is the
> responsibility of the recipient to run the virus check on e-mails and
> attachments before opening them. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> kindly delete this e-mail from desktop and server.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
**************************************************************************************
This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the postmaster at nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00
**************************************************************************************
More information about the rules-users
mailing list