[rules-users] execute particular rules programmatically and dynamically
Benson Fung
benson.redhat at gmail.com
Thu Apr 14 13:51:37 EDT 2011
Hi Bob,
Let me try to implement the AgendaFIlter :
import java.util.List;
import org.drools.runtime.rule.Activation;
import org.drools.runtime.rule.AgendaFilter;
public class RuleNameContainsAgendaFilter implements AgendaFilter {
private List<String> rules;
public RuleNameContainsAgendaFilter(List<String> rules) {
this.rules = rules;
}
public boolean accept(Activation activation) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
String activationRuleName = activation.getRule().getName();
if(rules.contains(activationRuleName)) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
}
I think the above the AgendaFilter can resolve the particular rule
execution value, i.e. Just pass all the specific rule into a List
object and create the above AgendaFilter, then those particular rule
can be executed.
Please comment.
Benson
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:38 PM, 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.
>
> 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
>
More information about the rules-users
mailing list