Hi,
Is there any update as to the availability of ruleflow in 3.2 as it's
become pivotal to our use of JBoss Rules?
Thanks,
Mike
________________________________
From: Mark Proctor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 January 2007 16:50
To: Anstis, Michael (M.)
Subject: Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2?
as soon as MVEL is ready we'll do an M1, but the ruleflow part
is not exposed to thte drl language yet, that will take a few more
weeks.
Mark
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
I might have a play around just to see how I get on, but
think I'll wait for 3.1 before I get "serious" - can I get the latest
(unstable) code (is it CVS or somewhere)?
- and I won't be using this private address ongoing (I
didn't want to hit the rules list with news of your latest code).
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: 23 January 2007 16:13
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] BRMS: Evaluation:
JBoss Rules 3.2?
not sure its that simple as the stack concept is
built into the engine. but good luck.
Mark
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
Thanks Mark,
I think I've got the hang of
AgendaGroups!!
Presumably if I sub-class DefaultAgenda
and override setFocus(AgendaGroup ag) and getNextfocus() I can implement
my own flow-like mechanism instead of the standard stack. I'd need to
add a way in which to override the DefaultAgenda created in
ReteooWorkingMemory's constructor too but this again should be a simple
sub-class (together with a subclass of ReteooRulebase with override of
newWorkingMemory and a new RuleBaseFactory to allow me to construct
these new objects). Anything major I've missed - my experience with
rules engines now totals a couple of weeks and it's possible I'm missing
the point!!
With kind regards,
Mike
________________________________
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: 22 January 2007 16:33
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] BRMS:
Evaluation: JBoss Rules 3.2?
Anstis,
We don't have ruleflow, but we do have
AgendaGroups which can provide a form of rule flow, just that its
actually stack based. I'm working on a more general ruleflow idea at the
moment, it may make it into the end of Q1 release, but its not defnite
yet.
Normally you cache the rulebase in a
singleton and then just creating working memory instances as and when
you need to - creating a working memory is light.
The guided gui builder is for 3.2, it's
web only based on GWT, I believe that it will also do DSLs (Mic will
have to confirm that).
Mark
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
Hi,
I'm evaluating BRMS's for a new project
at work.
JBoss Rules today swung into pole
position however I am unclear on a number of features. I wonder whether
this user-group can help?
I list a number of aspects I "think" are
currently missing in JBoss Rules together with my thoughts: If anybody
can clarify the position, provide alternatives or help push JBoss Rules
I'd be pleased to hear!
* We require ruleflow (where rules
run sequentially; like "identify all machines X" then "calculate prices"
- not perhaps a good illustration as this could be written as one rule
"calculate all prices using machine XXX"!!!). Ideally "dynamic" ruleflow
is required too - where the next rule in a sequence is determined by the
outcome of a preceding rule (I have seen dynamic achieved with "trigger"
Facts asserted as the RHS of rules however our "Business Users" cannot
be expected to author rules following this design pattern. I have also
seen static implemented with salience). Is ruleflow (static or dynamic)
part of 3.2 - otherwise we'll need to categorise rules having different
types fired throughout a "coded" process in Java.
* A J2EE runtime to provide
scalability of the RETE engine. We need to have the engine being shared
across sessions on a web-server. What experiences have others had? Do
you simply provide a working memory instance per session (how does this
scale horizontally?). I also read that an Application Server runtime
would be part of 3.2, is this true?
* A rule authoring environment for
end-users. I read on Mark Proctor's blogg that this is in development
but is it set for inclusion in 3.2 and does it handle DSL too; otherwise
we'd have to write out own?
With kind regards,
Michael Anstis
-------------------------------------------
Next Generation Estimating System
* Trafford House (Int) 8 718 2239
* Trafford House (Ext) +44 (0)1268
702239
* <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
________________________________
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
