Sorry you Q was about ruleflow in general, not just general releases.
Yes RuleFlow is in there and Kris has already done some basic tooling.
We are currently trying to decide whether we have the ruleflow as xml or
something like drl. As you do ruleflows with tooling we are tempted to
keep it xml.
Mark
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
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]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
