Re: [rules-users] JSR-94 and JEE integration
The "Rules Framework" project @ sourceforge, http://sourceforge.net/projects/rules/, addresses this scenario, especially the JSR 94 based JCA resource adapter and the JSR 94 based Stateless Decision Service. Rainer Knoster wrote: > > Hi, > i would like to integrate drools in jee. to be more flexible i was loking > at jsr-94. as i suppose jsr-94 only addresses j2se environment, my > question is: how it is possible to use drools with this specs from an ejb3 > session bean? my thoughts about this brought me to the idea of injecting > the rules-administrator via resource annotation to prevent the container > always doing a class.forname(..) lookup. to define a j2se resource in a > jee container a jca might be the best way to integrate and to assure the > jee specs will not be violated. but this seams a lot of overhead to me. > how do u use drools in your jee applications when not relying on the brms? > any help or ideas on integrating drools with jsr-94 in jee would be great. > > Knosta > > > > ___ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/JSR-94-and-JEE-integration-tp17751072p18749348.html Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Compiling .drl files inside of a JUnit test
Mark Proctor wrote: >You don't have your DRLs in the correct location, our DRLs mirror the path of >the class that is loading them via getClass().getResourceAsStream(): >http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/labs/labs/jbossrules/trunk/drools-compiler/src/test/resources/org/drools/integrationtests/ >It just does a loadClass on the classLoader, as long as your classes are in >the classpath it will find them. So, when the compiler is compiling the rules file, it will "inherit" the classpath from Eclipse? Or it should? To me, the key is your phrase "as long as your classes are in the classpath". As far as Eclipse is concerned they are, but what classpath is used by the compiler of the .drl file? There is an entire complex directory structure to the project and the unit tests are in one directory which is far removed from the source for the classes yet when other unit tests run, they see everything as expected, which my test class extending TestCase also sees, but not the compiler compiling the .drl file. Apologies for being so slow with this but I'm learning Java and Drools at the same time, not an ideal situation. Thanks for the help! Ron _ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008 ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] determinism with rulebase partitioning
Sorry I meant to ask this on th dev list :( Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: Hi Mark, A few questions:- (A) What does "parallel evaluation of a rulebase" mean? Is it designed to optimise, for example, two threads processing a stateless and stateful session? It works out the parts of the network that can be isolated, so we can use multiple threads in parallel for evalation of a rulebase. (B) Are there only two partitions, both of which are invisible to the user? Is there any value in allowing user-defined partitions? There could be any number of partitions depending on the analysis of the rulebase. It's an internal optimisation of a rulebase, so it's not something they are aware of. A user cannot define a partition, as partitions are determined by the rules written and their level of isolation. (C) Does the partition used depend upon what type of session is used (i.e. stateless always uses the partition without an agenda whereas stateful always uses the partition with an agenda)? it analysesthe rulebase, nothing to do with the session type. However stateless sessions without inference typically don't need determinstic execution, so we can just evaluate and fire there. (D) Can a rule sometimes be deterministic and sometimes not (i.e. depends upon the type of session)? Not on the type of session, no. And having a rule sometimes determinstic would probably be bad. Cheers, Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor Sent: 01 August 2008 07:05 To: Rules Users List Subject: [rules-users] determinism with rulebase partitioning We have rulebase partitioning almost working, this allows parallel evaluation of a rulebase. For stateless lessions with no agenda this will allow for much faster executions, where you don't care about deterministic execution. However for deterministic execution its more complicated. The current plan is to have an agenda per parition, which means that we no longer have rulebase wide deterministic execution order, only with the partition itself. The user is unlikely to be aware of the created partitions, so won't be aware of the unditermistic behavour of their rulebase. Anyone have any input on mechanisms users can do to help the rulebase know what needs to be executed deterministically and what doesn't? Mark ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Compiling .drl files inside of a JUnit test
Ron Kneusel wrote: Edson wrote: Right now, Drools uses JUnit for all its unit and integration tests. Take a look at the integration tests and I think you will figure out: http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/labs/labs/jbossrules/trunk/drools-compiler/src/test/java/org/drools/integrationtests/ Thanks for the link but I do not see how this helps with my problem. Perhaps it would if I could see the actual .drl files. For example, when I use getClass().getResourceAsStream(...) a null is returned but even it that part worked, it wouldn't be any different than what I currently have. You don't have your DRLs in the correct location, our DRLs mirror the path of the class that is loading them via getClass().getResourceAsStream(): http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/labs/labs/jbossrules/trunk/drools-compiler/src/test/resources/org/drools/integrationtests/ Seeing the .drl file is not the problem. Getting the import statements in the .drl file to actually find the proper classes is. Do you know how the actual .drl files used in the unit testing are referring to the objects they need? It just does a loadClass on the classLoader, as long as your classes are in the classpath it will find them. Ron _ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008 ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Reusing predicates
Kris Nuttycombe wrote: Hi, all, I have a set of rules where the LHS is essentially the same except for a couple of additional conditions in each case. What is the best way to factor out these common predicates? Should I simply create an intermediate fact based upon the common set of conditions and then reason with that fact, or is there a way of reusing them without adding another fact to the mix? 'or' conditional element will result in subrule generation, but you would need to put all your logic in a single rule. You could try a DSL to create building blocks of your re-usable parts. Also your predicate logic should be in a function, so that function is re-usable. Thanks, Kris ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Compiling .drl files inside of a JUnit test
Edson wrote: > >Right now, Drools uses JUnit for all its unit and integration tests. Take a >look at the integration tests and I think you will figure out: >http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/labs/labs/jbossrules/trunk/drools-compiler/src/test/java/org/drools/integrationtests/ Thanks for the link but I do not see how this helps with my problem. Perhaps it would if I could see the actual .drl files. For example, when I use getClass().getResourceAsStream(...) a null is returned but even it that part worked, it wouldn't be any different than what I currently have. Seeing the .drl file is not the problem. Getting the import statements in the .drl file to actually find the proper classes is. Do you know how the actual .drl files used in the unit testing are referring to the objects they need? Ron _ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008 ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Problems with looping
Did you implement equals() and hashCode()?
Implementing them isn't hard. Implementing them well
can be tricky, but for these purposes a simple
implementation will do. Basically, with equals() you
want to compare the stuff contained in the objects.
With hashCode() you want to produce an integer that
can be used in HashMaps. The only restriction is
that, if o1.equals(o2) == true, then o1.hashCode() ==
o2.hashCode(). (The reverse is not necessarily true.)
The easiest way to implement these is to just compare
the fields that define the state of your object:
public class Foo {
int bar;
String bas;
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if(o instanceof Foo) {
Foo other = (Foo)o;
return bar == other.bar && bas != null &&
bas.equals(other.bas);
} else {
return false;
}
}
public int hashCode() {
int hash = 37;
hash ^= bar;
if(bas != null) {
hash ^= bas.hashCode();
}
return hash;
}
}
One good way to make this easier is to use the jakarta
commons EqualsBuilder and HashCodeBuilder classes.
They also help you implement them "well," especially
hashCode.
GreG
--- thomas kukofka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I used no-loop true but it still loops!!
>
> Thomas
>
> Hi
>
> you must use "no-loop true" and the rule will be
> executed one for one
> InputObject.
>
>
> 2008/8/1 thomas kukofka
web.de
> >:
>
> > Hello,
>
> >
>
> > I have and less loop (the rule should only
> executed one for one
> InputObject)
>
> > in the follwing rule although I use "no-loop":
>
> >
>
> > rule "rulename"
>
> > dialect "java"
>
> > no-loop
>
> > when
>
> > io: InputObject (type ==
> InputObject.Type.Typename)
>
> > then
>
> >
> io.setStringPropertyValue(InputObject.PROPERTYVALUE,
> "somestring");
>
> > update(oo);
>
> >
>
> > end
>
> >
>
> > I've read that I have to overwrite hashcode and
> equals, can this be the
>
> > reason? If yes, do you have an example how to
> overwrite these methods?
>
> >
>
> > Thomas
> > ___
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Problems with looping
Hi, I used no-loop true but it still loops!! Thomas Hi you must use "no-loop true" and the rule will be executed one for one InputObject. 2008/8/1 thomas kukofka https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users> >: > Hello, > > I have and less loop (the rule should only executed one for one InputObject) > in the follwing rule although I use "no-loop": > > rule "rulename" > dialect "java" > no-loop > when > io: InputObject (type == InputObject.Type.Typename) > then > io.setStringPropertyValue(InputObject.PROPERTYVALUE, "somestring"); > update(oo); > > end > > I've read that I have to overwrite hashcode and equals, can this be the > reason? If yes, do you have an example how to overwrite these methods? > > Thomas ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] (no subject)
Hi, I used no-loop true but it still loops!! Thomas Hi you must use "no-loop true" and the rule will be executed one for one InputObject. 2008/8/1 thomas kukofka https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users> >: > Hello, > > I have and less loop (the rule should only executed one for one InputObject) > in the follwing rule although I use "no-loop": > > rule "rulename" > dialect "java" > no-loop > when > io: InputObject (type == InputObject.Type.Typename) > then > io.setStringPropertyValue(InputObject.PROPERTYVALUE, "somestring"); > update(oo); > > end > > I've read that I have to overwrite hashcode and equals, can this be the > reason? If yes, do you have an example how to overwrite these methods? > > Thomas ** ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Problems with looping
Hi, you must use "no-loop true" and the rule will be executed one for one InputObject. 2008/8/1 thomas kukofka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello, > > I have and less loop (the rule should only executed one for one InputObject) > in the follwing rule although I use "no-loop": > > rule "rulename" > dialect "java" > no-loop > when > io: InputObject (type == InputObject.Type.Typename) > then > io.setStringPropertyValue(InputObject.PROPERTYVALUE, "somestring"); > update(oo); > > end > > I've read that I have to overwrite hashcode and equals, can this be the > reason? If yes, do you have an example how to overwrite these methods? > > Thomas > > ___ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > -- Lic. Vanina Beraudo ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Problems with looping
Hello, I have and less loop (the rule should only executed one for one InputObject) in the follwing rule although I use "no-loop": rule "rulename" dialect "java" no-loop when io: InputObject (type == InputObject.Type.Typename) then io.setStringPropertyValue(InputObject.PROPERTYVALUE, "somestring"); update(oo); end I've read that I have to overwrite hashcode and equals, can this be the reason? If yes, do you have an example how to overwrite these methods? Thomas ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] determinism with rulebase partitioning
I think that even with rulebase partitions, we should continue to support current execution mode. So, we should keep a rulebase configuration that basically allow the user to defines: either single-thread (as it is today) or multi-thread (as we are trying to achieve) execution. Having that in mind, in the multi-thread mode: (A) What does "parallel evaluation of a rulebase" mean? Is it designed to optimise, for example, two threads processing a stateless and stateful session? Means that rules that do not share nodes, being independent of each other (from an evaluation perspective), will be evaluated in parallel. This is very common scenario and a desidered feature in CEP engines. (B) Are there only two partitions, both of which are invisible to the user? Is there any value in allowing user-defined partitions? There will be as many partitions as the compiler can create for the given set of rules. Rules that share more nodes, are more difficult to partition, while rules that are independent from an LHS point of view, are easier to parallelize. In my opinion, the only thing that may be helpful to expose and allow the user to control is the maximum size of the thread pool that is used to propagate facts. Even that I'm not sure is so helpful, because it is complex to fine tune such things, since the partitioning is completely dependent on the rules added to the rulebase. (C) Does the partition used depend upon what type of session is used (i.e. stateless always uses the partition without an agenda whereas stateful always uses the partition with an agenda)? The partitioning of the rulebase is dependent upon the rules in the rulebase and nothing more. But that is different from the agenda. The agenda issue is much more complex, because even with partitions we can keep a single deterministic agenda (as long as it is not in active mode - runUntilHalt). Now, if the agenda is in active mode, or if we have multiple agendas (1 per partition, for instance), then the engine behavior becomes indeterministic. This is a common scenario in CEP systems that have multiple different "queries" running over the same set of streams, trying to detect and act upon them as soon as they are detected, and event streams are indeterministic by their own nature. In common rules engines scenarios, I'm not sure we can run in this indeterministic mode. (D) Can a rule sometimes be deterministic and sometimes not (i.e. depends upon the type of session)? It will always depend on the set of rules (the rulebase), not the type of session. One rule is always deterministic when considered in isolation, but two or more rules may or may not be deterministic in relation to each other. Just remember Eisten's Relativity Theory... ;) []s Edson 2008/8/1 Anstis, Michael (M.) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi Mark, > > A few questions:- > > (A) What does "parallel evaluation of a rulebase" mean? Is it designed > to optimise, for example, two threads processing a stateless and > stateful session? > > (B) Are there only two partitions, both of which are invisible to the > user? Is there any value in allowing user-defined partitions? > > (C) Does the partition used depend upon what type of session is used > (i.e. stateless always uses the partition without an agenda whereas > stateful always uses the partition with an agenda)? > > (D) Can a rule sometimes be deterministic and sometimes not (i.e. > depends upon the type of session)? > > Cheers, > > Mike > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor > Sent: 01 August 2008 07:05 > To: Rules Users List > Subject: [rules-users] determinism with rulebase partitioning > > We have rulebase partitioning almost working, this allows parallel > evaluation of a rulebase. For stateless lessions with no agenda this > will allow for much faster executions, where you don't care about > deterministic execution. However for deterministic execution its more > complicated. The current plan is to have an agenda per parition, which > means that we no longer have rulebase wide deterministic execution > order, only with the partition itself. The user is unlikely to be aware > of the created partitions, so won't be aware of the unditermistic > behavour of their rulebase. Anyone have any input on mechanisms users > can do to help the rulebase know what needs to be executed > deterministically and what doesn't? > > Mark > ___ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > ___ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists
