[rules-users] execute particular rules programmatically and dynamically

[Wolfgang Laun]

What could be the reason for...

On 14 April 2011 11:38, Robert Christenson <rac at akc.org> wrote:

> We've come across something similar in our project just recently as well.
>
> We have a requirement to have some rules activate based on a tab-off action
> but also at a higher level (such as validating an entire event entry in the
> GUI). I also need these rules to activate if initiated from an external
> webservice (no GUI at all).
>
> What we've decided to utilize is a meta identifier in certain rules called
> FieldsAffected which may contain a delimited list of field identifiers.
>
> An AgendaFilter implementation is created for GUI side requests and passed
> to fireAllRules. The filter implementation compares any/all field
> identifiers passed within the request and keeps only those activations which
> contain the field identifier in it's metadata field.
>

...not using a regular rule condition to ascertain this field match?

-W


>
> Our RHS creates a validation msg which contains the field identifiers so
> that the calling GUI can display the proper msgs to the field.
>
> This allows us to support multiple call scenarios without duplicating the
> logic in multiple rules just based on context info.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Bob Christenson
>
>
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:23:44 +0800
> > From: Benson Fung <benson.redhat at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [rules-users] execute particular rules programmatically
> >    and    dynamically
> > To: Rules Users List <rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
> > Message-ID: <BANLkTi=OGO=rWFEnYBHM144GVSt+P_KVtQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Thanks Michael, let me think about your solution seriously afterwards.
> >  Actually, I am using GWT.
> > I would like to say that sometimes customer's requirement is picky and
> > unexpectable.  They really want to have close coupling between UI and
> > Rules.  haha.....  :)    Do you think it is helpless as a
> > consultant???   :~(
> >
> > If anyone has another idea of this scenario, you are welcome to post
> > your idea out there.
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much
> >
> >
> >
> > 2011/4/14 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis at gmail.com>:
> >> In my example Rule 1 was shared between "screen1.panel1.editbox1" and
> >> "screen1.panel1.editbox2":-
> >>
> >> rule "Rule1"
> >> ? salience 1
> >> ? dialect "mvel"
> >> ??? when
> >> ????? ApplicationContext( context in ("screen1.panel1.editbox1",
> >> "screen1.panel1.editbox2") )
> >> ? ? ? ad : ApplicationData( age == "" || ( ?== null ))
> >> ? ? then
> >> ? ??? ad.setReturnMsg( "\n age should not be null or empty" );
> >> end
> >>
> >> This is an approach and may not be the best available; I was trying to
> >> demonstrate how your problem can be solved without having to worry about
> >> explicitly executing individual rules.For example, depending on what UI
> >> technology you are using (Swing, JSF) you could subclass the UI
> components
> >> and use these as facts - but such close coupling between UI and Rules
> may be
> >> undesirable.
> >>
> >> With kind regards,
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On 14 April 2011 03:52, Benson Fung <benson.redhat at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Good, Michael.
> >>>
> >>> 'context' is used to distinguish which part of the UI which will be
> >>> validated, right? ?The customer will ask if they have 10000 rules in
> >>> the rulebase. ?And some of them are redundant, so they want to make
> >>> some of the rules share with several part of UI, e.g. ?editbox 6,
> >>> editbox 7 and editbox 8 these 3 boxes' value range is within 0 and
> >>> 600. ?Therefore, Rule3 can be shared for these 3 editbox validation,
> >>> right? ?However, for the context variable approach, it seems Rule3
> >>> cannot be shared for another editbox with same value range validation.
> >>> ?So these could be a key for the BRMS/Drools.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Benson
> >>>
> >>> 2011/4/14 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis at gmail.com>:
> >>>> Sure, whenever you copy values from your UI to your model for
> validation
> >>>> you
> >>>> also enter a fact representing the "context" of the values.
> >>>>
> >>>> Using your example you have two edit boxes on one screen and your rule
> >>>> simply checks for the value of a single edit box; in this case the
> >>>> context
> >>>> differentiates the two.
> >>>>
> >>>> Walking your example:
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) When editbox 1 looses focus you copy the value from the dropdown
> and
> >>>> edit box 1 into your model, plus you enter a "context" fact stating
> that
> >>>> these values relate to that part of the UI (say
> >>>> "screen1.panel1.editbox1").
> >>>> You then insert these facts into WM and call fireAllRules. The rules
> >>>> check
> >>>> the "context" and only execute if the values are for the (rule)
> >>>> applicable
> >>>> context. (2) Editbox 2 works in a similar way, but has a different
> >>>> context
> >>>> ((say "screen1.panel1.editbox2").
> >>>>
> >>>> Have a look at Plugtree - I believe they're quite well customed to
> >>>> writing
> >>>> UIs backed with rules; salaboy or esteban (or IRC #drools) might be
> able
> >>>> to
> >>>> offer more practical advice.
> >>>>
> >>>> With kind regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 13 April 2011 17:48, Benson Fung <benson.redhat at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Michael,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you elaborate more for the uses of the ApplicationContext? ?I
> >>>>> can't follow its uses.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>> Benson
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2011/4/14 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis at gmail.com>:
> >>>>>> Here's a quick (and probably sub-optimal way) ;)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When you copy values from the UI to Facts for validation you also
> >>>>>> include
> >>>>>> the context of the validation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've also removed the inline evals you were using.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> rule "Rule1"
> >>>>>> ? salience 1
> >>>>>> ? dialect "mvel"
> >>>>>> ??? when
> >>>>>> ????? ApplicationContext( context == "*" )
> >>>>>> ? ? ? ad : ApplicationData( age == "" || ( ?== null ))
> >>>>>> ? ? then
> >>>>>> ? ??? ad.setReturnMsg( "\n age should not be null or empty" );
> >>>>>> end
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> rule "Rule2"
> >>>>>> ? dialect "mvel"
> >>>>>> ??? when
> >>>>>> ? ??? ApplicationContext( context == "screen1.panel1.ed" )
> >>>>>> ? ? ? ad : ApplicationData( $age : age != null , age != "" , age < 0
> >>>>>> ||
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> 100, minIssrdAge == "Years" )
> >>>>>> ? ? then
> >>>>>> ? ??? ad.setReturnMsg( "\nage is out of the range(i.e. ?< 0 and >
> >>>>>> 100)"
> >>>>>> );
> >>>>>> end
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> rule "Rule3"
> >>>>>> ?? dialect "mvel"
> >>>>>> ? ?? when
> >>>>>> ? ? ?? ad : ApplicationData( $age : age != null , age != "" , age <0
> >>>>>> ||
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> 600, minIssrdAge == "Years" )
> >>>>>> ? ?? then
> >>>>>> ? ? ?? ad.setReturnMsg( "\nage is out of the range(i.e. ?< 0 and >
> >>>>>> 600)"
> >>>>>> );
> >>>>>> end
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 13 April 2011 17:19, Benson Fung <benson.redhat at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here is the scenario :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If there are 2 edit boxes and 2 dropdown list at the frontend like.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> dropdown(minIssrdAge1) ? editbox(age1)
> >>>>>>> dropdown(minIssrdAge2) ? editbox(age2)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> everytime when I lost focus the editbox(age1 or age2), ?the
> >>>>>>> editbox(age1 or age2) value will be validated against the following
> >>>>>>> rules.
> >>>>>>> i.e. ?minIssrdAge1 and age1 will be validated together if lost
> focus
> >>>>>>> the editbox age1.
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? minIssrdAge2 and age2 will be validated together if lost
> focus
> >>>>>>> the editbox age2
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rule1 is mandatory because both editbox are required field.
> >>>>>>> However, editbox(age1) is only valid within the 0 and 100. ?and
> >>>>>>> editbox(age2) is only valid within 0 and 600.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In other words, editbox(age1) have to be validated against Rule1 +
> >>>>>>> Rule2. ?However, editbox(age2) have to validated against Rule1 +
> >>>>>>> Rule3.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My question, how to design the rule attribute or at the java
> program
> >>>>>>> side so that different editbox can be validated against different
> >>>>>>> rule.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please help. ?I can't find any solution by now.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> rule "Rule1"
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?salience 1
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?dialect "mvel"
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?when
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ad : ApplicationData( age == "" || ( ?== null ))
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?then
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ad.setReturnMsg( "\n age should not be null or
> empty"
> >>>>>>> );
> >>>>>>> end
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> rule "Rule2"
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?dialect "mvel"
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?when
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ad : ApplicationData( $age : age != null , age != ""
> >>>>>>> ,
> >>>>>>> minIssrdAge
> >>>>>>> == "Years" )
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?eval(Integer.parseInt($age) < 0) or
> >>>>>>> eval(Integer.parseInt($age) > 100)
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?then
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ad.setReturnMsg( "\nage is out of the range(i.e. ?<
> 0
> >>>>>>> and >
> >>>>>>> 100)" );
> >>>>>>> end
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> rule "Rule3"
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?dialect "mvel"
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?when
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ad : ApplicationData( $age : age != null , age != ""
> >>>>>>> ,
> >>>>>>> minIssrdAge
> >>>>>>> == "Years" )
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?eval(Integer.parseInt($age) < 0) or
> >>>>>>> eval(Integer.parseInt($age) > 600)
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?then
> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ad.setReturnMsg( "\nage is out of the range(i.e. ?<
> 0
> >>>>>>> and >
> >>>>>>> 600)" );
> >>>>>>> end
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> rules-users mailing list
> >>>>>>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> rules-users mailing list
> >>>>>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> rules-users mailing list
> >>>>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> rules-users mailing list
> >>>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> rules-users mailing list
> >>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rules-users mailing list
> >> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20110414/60cba16f/attachment.html