[rules-users] Check if a pattern binding exists in the RHS
Hello everybody, on the LHS of my rule i connect several Conditions with OR and have different variable bindings for this Condition. Now - if any of this conditions does not fire, i assume that the binding variable is not created, so I can't access it in the RHS. This results in an null pointer exception when I call the fireAllRules-Command in my Java Application. A simple rule example: rule Rule 1 when HKT: Parameter(parameterCode = HKT, value normalFloor) or GGT: Parameter(parameterCode = GGT, value normalFloor) or HSR: Parameter(parameterCode = HSR, value normalFloor) and GOT: Parameter(parameterCode = GOT, value normalFloor) then System.out.println(HKT.toString(); end So my Question is: Is there any way to check in the RHS wheter the pattern binding has been created or not or do i have to change the way of writing my rules (which i do not want to)? thanks, hatzlj -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Check-if-a-pattern-binding-exists-in-the-RHS-tp19032260p19032260.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
[rules-users] Sequential mode supports rule flow ??
Hi , i'm using Drools4.0.7 . For improving performance of my rule engine ,i want to go for Sequential mode . i want to know whether sequential mode supports Rule Flow . if yes how can i do that ? thank you -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Sequential-mode-supports--rule-flow-tp19046672p19046672.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
[rules-users] some basic questions to grouping
Hi, I'm having some difficulty to understand the concept of grouping, but maybe it's only because of my understanding of the terms, so please apologize for the silly question 1. when you are saying rules fire, does this mean: matching/checking the LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure whether(and how) to use the agenda or activation group (or even the rule-flow). My problem domain is actually quite simple: - rules are applied based on e.g age of a person. Now, there are some rules for 17-year-or older, and some for 30-year-old person, if I'm to use the agenda group, I'd define the following: rule1 agenda-group 17 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 17) rule2 agenda-group 17 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 17) . rule3 agenda-group 30 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 30) .. rule4 agenda-group 30 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 30) .. If I assert a person into the WM to check his/her age, I want that only the rules in 30-years-old agenda are CHECKED (and eventually executed when the other constraints are fulfilled), bcs they are surely older than 17 as well. And this is not only for comparing ages. Another example, some rules are only for Gender.MALE, and some only for Gender.FEMALE. So if a person is asserted, only the rules with corresponding gender will be checked and no need of checking/matching the other group The main purpose is just to skip checking unrelevant rules (imagine if there is only 1 rule for MALE and 1000 rules for FEMALE with 1000 times WHEN person (gender == FEMALE) checking for an asserted male-object). How can I do this effectively? Or will ALL rules checked and only the order of checking (and eventually exection of their RHS) is defined by the grouping? I hope I've described my problem clearly and I'll try to explain this again in case of difficulty :) Thanks in advance Regards -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/some-basic-questions-to-grouping-tp19048066p19048066.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] some basic questions to grouping
Hi, ad 1) my understanding of the term a rule fires is: if the LHS of a rule is true the rule fires (that means roughly: the RHS of the rule is added to the agenda and executed in a given order). ad 2) i have no detailed knowledge of drools but i assume ruleflow could be the right thing for you. i would make some ruleflow-groups, for example one for each gender. in the ruleflow definition you can make a split depending on the gender of the person, after that you can join again and split depending on the age of the person and execute the corresponding ruleflow-groups. you can look up details for creating ruleflows at: http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/4.0.7.19894.GA/html_single/index.html#d0e4418 regards, jakob psentosa wrote: Hi, I'm having some difficulty to understand the concept of grouping, but maybe it's only because of my understanding of the terms, so please apologize for the silly question 1. when you are saying rules fire, does this mean: matching/checking the LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure whether(and how) to use the agenda or activation group (or even the rule-flow). My problem domain is actually quite simple: - rules are applied based on e.g age of a person. Now, there are some rules for 17-year-or older, and some for 30-year-old person, if I'm to use the agenda group, I'd define the following: rule1 agenda-group 17 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 17) rule2 agenda-group 17 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 17) . rule3 agenda-group 30 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 30) .. rule4 agenda-group 30 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 30) .. If I assert a person into the WM to check his/her age, I want that only the rules in 30-years-old agenda are CHECKED (and eventually executed when the other constraints are fulfilled), bcs they are surely older than 17 as well. And this is not only for comparing ages. Another example, some rules are only for Gender.MALE, and some only for Gender.FEMALE. So if a person is asserted, only the rules with corresponding gender will be checked and no need of checking/matching the other group The main purpose is just to skip checking unrelevant rules (imagine if there is only 1 rule for MALE and 1000 rules for FEMALE with 1000 times WHEN person (gender == FEMALE) checking for an asserted male-object). How can I do this effectively? Or will ALL rules checked and only the order of checking (and eventually exection of their RHS) is defined by the grouping? I hope I've described my problem clearly and I'll try to explain this again in case of difficulty :) Thanks in advance Regards -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/some-basic-questions-to-grouping-tp19048066p19048073.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] FROM and the working memory
David, it will use RETE but the actual data is retrieved on-demand... meaning no previous processing is made, and if it is a list, it will iterate the list every-time, so, it is less efficient than when the data is already in the working memory. It is useful for cases, for instance, when you have a lot of data outside of the working memory, but you are only interested in a small subset of the data... asserting all the data would then be a waste. []s Edson 2008/8/19 David Boaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all, in the drools manual (6.5.28): FROM allows the engine to reason over data not in the working memory. Will drools use rete to evaluate patterns with a FROM source? Lets assume the following rule: WHEN p:Person(age60), Address(city=NY) FROM p.addresses will the rule engine match the Address pattern using rete? and, what about the following rule: when p:Person(age=m), Person(age60) from p 1) will it work? 2) will the age constraint be matched using rete? Thanks, David -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/FROM-and-the-working-memory-tp19020847p19020847.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 -- 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.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] CEP functionality
Hi David, must have missed your previous e-mail. * Where can we find a more detailed description of CEP functionality in drools? Unfortunately we don't have proper documentation for CEP in Drools yet. General documentation about the subject can be found in a lot of places, but a good starting point is: www.complexevents.com. * Is it a good idea to use CEP for analyzing historic data (retrieved from the database)? or is it best for online data. Usually CEP is used to match online **events** with historic **data**, but in the reality, in Drools you can assign event semantics to any type of fact, so it really depends on your problem domain and how you are modeling it. * Can we use CEP in a stateless session? Not sure it makes sense. Need to investigate that. CEP is usually about streams of events and ongoing event pattern detection, and so we are developing it for Stateful sessions. * As we understand, CEP attaches to each fact a temporal attribute of the assertion time. Can we define that a particular attribute (e.g., LabResult.samplingDate) will be used as the time stamp? Or, should we assert the facts by their temporal order, and advance the session-clock appropriately? Yes, just assign event semantics to your fact and declare its timestamp attribute: declare LabResult @role( event ) @timestamp( samplingDate ) end * Can we use CEP to analyze the data in the examples above? Well, you can, but is it the best tool for the job? Maybe yes, maybe no. Look at your case and read the quick list of itens that describe what means to assign and event semantic to your labresults. They will match I guess, but just make it sure. Otherwise, maybe what you need is best support for date constraints, and that is another subject. Keep tunned. As the pieces start to come to their places now, we will be releasing more info on our CEP support. Cheers, Edson 2008/8/19 David Boaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear all, We posted this question two weeks ago, but with no replies. please forgive me for posting it again. In our business, most of the facts have time-stamp attributes. For example, each laboratory test (a fact) has the time stamp when the sample was taken, and when the machine produced the result value. In our business-logic, we often analyze the relation between facts using these attributes. For example: 1) finding two adjacent labResults with an increasing value 2) checking whether 3 facts are consecutive 3) counting the number of facts fulfilling a specific constraint within a specific time window. We were happy to read (in the blog) about the new CEP feature which is about to be added to drools 5.0. * Where can we find a more detailed description of CEP functionality in drools? * Is it a good idea to use CEP for analyzing historic data (retrieved from the database)? or is it best for online data. * Can we use CEP in a stateless session? * As we understand, CEP attaches to each fact a temporal attribute of the assertion time. Can we define that a particular attribute (e.g., LabResult.samplingDate) will be used as the time stamp? Or, should we assert the facts by their temporal order, and advance the session-clock appropriately? * Can we use CEP to analyze the data in the examples above? Many thanks for the help, David -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CEP-functionality-tp19020709p19020709.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 -- 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.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Fire rule only when all the fact objects sent during a specific period match the WHEN part
Ok, your case seems clearly a case where you need either a
StatefulSession or your application needs to send previous readings to
drools.
If you are using a StatefulSession AND you always use the same SystemInfo
object (just use update on it), you could use duration on your rule:
rule Start_New_Process_If_System_is_70%_Idle_Continuously_for_60_Seconds
duration 6
when
SystemInfo (idle = 70) //Idle continuously for 60 seconds
then
// start new process
end
Using StatelessSession, you must have an update rule for your object
rule System_is_70%_Idle
salience 10
when
$si : SystemInfo (idle = 70)
then
$si.setIdleCounter( $si.getIdleCounter() + 1 );
end
rule Start_New_Process_If_System_is_70%_Idle_Continuously_for_60_Seconds
when
SystemInfo( idleCounter = 12)
then
// start new process
end
[]s
Edson
2008/8/19 ganesh.p [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I need to create a rule with following requirements:
There is a fact class called SystemInfo which contains idle information of
a
sytem
public class SystemInfo {
private double idle; //System idle percentage
public void setIdle(double idle) {
this.idle = idle;
}
public double getIdle() {
return this.idle;
}
}
The SystemInfo objects are continuously sent to DROOLS (StatelessSession)
with 5 second delay.
I need to create a rule
rule Start_New_Process_If_System_is_70%_Idle_Continuously_for_60_Seconds
when SystemInfo (idle = 70) //Idle continuously for 60 seconds
then
// start new process
end
I need to fire this rule only if all the 12 SystemInfo objects which are
sent with 5 seconds delay for 60 seconds, match the condition idle = 70.
Even if a single SystemInfo doesn't match this condition then this rule
shouldn't be fired.
I am using DROOLS 4.0. Please help me in implementing the WHEN condition.
Thanks
-Ganesh
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Fire-rule-only-when-all-the-fact-objects-sent-during-a-specific-period-match-the-WHEN-part-tp19029247p19029247.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
--
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.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Check if a pattern binding exists in the RHS
This is a surprise for me, because you should get a compilation error for that. What version of Drools are you using? Anyway, you can't do that. When you use or, Drools will internally create one subrule for each logical branch in your LHS. So, any variable you use in the RHS must be bound in all possible logical branches. []s Edson 2008/8/19 hatzlj [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello everybody, on the LHS of my rule i connect several Conditions with OR and have different variable bindings for this Condition. Now - if any of this conditions does not fire, i assume that the binding variable is not created, so I can't access it in the RHS. This results in an null pointer exception when I call the fireAllRules-Command in my Java Application. A simple rule example: rule Rule 1 when HKT: Parameter(parameterCode = HKT, value normalFloor) or GGT: Parameter(parameterCode = GGT, value normalFloor) or HSR: Parameter(parameterCode = HSR, value normalFloor) and GOT: Parameter(parameterCode = GOT, value normalFloor) then System.out.println(HKT.toString(); end So my Question is: Is there any way to check in the RHS wheter the pattern binding has been created or not or do i have to change the way of writing my rules (which i do not want to)? thanks, hatzlj -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Check-if-a-pattern-binding-exists-in-the-RHS-tp19032260p19032260.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 -- 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.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] some basic questions to grouping
1. when you are saying rules fire, does this mean: matching/checking the LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule Means execute the RHS. The LHS of the rules is evaluated at assert time. Take a look at the docs for more info on that. 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure.. First a quick explanation: * agenda-groups allow you to control in what order rules are **fired**, because only rules from the active agenda-group are allowed to fire. * activation-groups allow you to create mutually exclusive rules, because when a rule in an activation-group **fires**, it cancel all other activations in the same group. None of it is what you want. In fact, you should not worry about the cases you described. Just write your patterns and constraints in the same order as much as possible, and also always write more constraining patterns before the more general patterns and let the engine do its magic. If you have 1 rule where gender is Gender.MALE, and 1000 rules where it is Gender.FEMALE and you assert a male (or female, dos not matter) Person, the engine will execute the condition only twice, because it shares the Gender.FEMALE constraint among all the rules, assuming you write the constraints in the same order. An even more interesting situation is: pretend you have some kind of discriminating attribute for person, like countryOfBirth, and you have 100 rules for each country that you have to handle (lets say 100). So, you have 100 x 100 = 1 rules: Rule x1 when Person( countryOfBirth == Country.CANADA... ... Rule x500 when Person( countryOfBirth == Country.BRAZIL... ... Guess how many times that condition will be executed for a Person whose country is CANADA (or any other country, does not matter)? Only **once**, because of an optimization called alpha hashing. Now range conditions are not hashed, but they still have node sharing, so as long as you write them in the same order, they are still optimized. The only problem you will have is if you start using accumulate and collect, that are really expensive in terms of performance. In cases like that, you will need a manual optimization, but it is still doable. Hope it helps. Edson 2008/8/19 psentosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I'm having some difficulty to understand the concept of grouping, but maybe it's only because of my understanding of the terms, so please apologize for the silly question 1. when you are saying rules fire, does this mean: matching/checking the LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure whether(and how) to use the agenda or activation group (or even the rule-flow). My problem domain is actually quite simple: - rules are applied based on e.g age of a person. Now, there are some rules for 17-year-or older, and some for 30-year-old person, if I'm to use the agenda group, I'd define the following: rule1 agenda-group 17 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 17) rule2 agenda-group 17 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 17) . rule3 agenda-group 30 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 30) .. rule4 agenda-group 30 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 30) .. If I assert a person into the WM to check his/her age, I want that only the rules in 30-years-old agenda are CHECKED (and eventually executed when the other constraints are fulfilled), bcs they are surely older than 17 as well. And this is not only for comparing ages. Another example, some rules are only for Gender.MALE, and some only for Gender.FEMALE. So if a person is asserted, only the rules with corresponding gender will be checked and no need of checking/matching the other group The main purpose is just to skip checking unrelevant rules (imagine if there is only 1 rule for MALE and 1000 rules for FEMALE with 1000 times WHEN person (gender == FEMALE) checking for an asserted male-object). How can I do this effectively? Or will ALL rules checked and only the order of checking (and eventually exection of their RHS) is defined by the grouping? I hope I've described my problem clearly and I'll try to explain this again in case of difficulty :) Thanks in advance Regards -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/some-basic-questions-to-grouping-tp19048066p19048066.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 -- 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.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] some basic questions to grouping
Thanks for your very informative reply, Edson! I hadn't picked up on the significance of stating conditions in the same order from the Drools documentation. Kris On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Edson Tirelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. when you are saying rules fire, does this mean: matching/checking the LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule Means execute the RHS. The LHS of the rules is evaluated at assert time. Take a look at the docs for more info on that. 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure.. First a quick explanation: * agenda-groups allow you to control in what order rules are **fired**, because only rules from the active agenda-group are allowed to fire. * activation-groups allow you to create mutually exclusive rules, because when a rule in an activation-group **fires**, it cancel all other activations in the same group. None of it is what you want. In fact, you should not worry about the cases you described. Just write your patterns and constraints in the same order as much as possible, and also always write more constraining patterns before the more general patterns and let the engine do its magic. If you have 1 rule where gender is Gender.MALE, and 1000 rules where it is Gender.FEMALE and you assert a male (or female, dos not matter) Person, the engine will execute the condition only twice, because it shares the Gender.FEMALE constraint among all the rules, assuming you write the constraints in the same order. An even more interesting situation is: pretend you have some kind of discriminating attribute for person, like countryOfBirth, and you have 100 rules for each country that you have to handle (lets say 100). So, you have 100 x 100 = 1 rules: Rule x1 when Person( countryOfBirth == Country.CANADA... ... Rule x500 when Person( countryOfBirth == Country.BRAZIL... ... Guess how many times that condition will be executed for a Person whose country is CANADA (or any other country, does not matter)? Only **once**, because of an optimization called alpha hashing. Now range conditions are not hashed, but they still have node sharing, so as long as you write them in the same order, they are still optimized. The only problem you will have is if you start using accumulate and collect, that are really expensive in terms of performance. In cases like that, you will need a manual optimization, but it is still doable. Hope it helps. Edson 2008/8/19 psentosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I'm having some difficulty to understand the concept of grouping, but maybe it's only because of my understanding of the terms, so please apologize for the silly question 1. when you are saying rules fire, does this mean: matching/checking the LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure whether(and how) to use the agenda or activation group (or even the rule-flow). My problem domain is actually quite simple: - rules are applied based on e.g age of a person. Now, there are some rules for 17-year-or older, and some for 30-year-old person, if I'm to use the agenda group, I'd define the following: rule1 agenda-group 17 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 17) rule2 agenda-group 17 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 17) . rule3 agenda-group 30 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 30) .. rule4 agenda-group 30 years-old or older when p:Person (Age 30) .. If I assert a person into the WM to check his/her age, I want that only the rules in 30-years-old agenda are CHECKED (and eventually executed when the other constraints are fulfilled), bcs they are surely older than 17 as well. And this is not only for comparing ages. Another example, some rules are only for Gender.MALE, and some only for Gender.FEMALE. So if a person is asserted, only the rules with corresponding gender will be checked and no need of checking/matching the other group The main purpose is just to skip checking unrelevant rules (imagine if there is only 1 rule for MALE and 1000 rules for FEMALE with 1000 times WHEN person (gender == FEMALE) checking for an asserted male-object). How can I do this effectively? Or will ALL rules checked and only the order of checking (and eventually exection of their RHS) is defined by the grouping? I hope I've described my problem clearly and I'll try to explain this again in case of difficulty :) Thanks in advance Regards -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/some-basic-questions-to-grouping-tp19048066p19048066.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 -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
Re: [rules-users] Drools 3.0.6 support for enum's on jdk 1.5 ?
Kris Nuttycombe wrote: It's been a few days since this question was asked, and I am also interested in the answer. I'm currently using an eval to get around the problem, but is there any way to check enum equivalence directly in drools? I beleive it'll work with primitive enums (int), but not enum classes. If you tried it and it doesn't work, probably safe to assume it doesn't support it :) Mark Thanks, Kris On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Maxim Veksler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello list, I have a rule that generally speaking looks like this : rule ABC when $f : FilteringStateConnector($campaignId : campaignId) $campaign : Campaign(code == $campaignId ,$limitTypeEnum : limitTypeEnum, $limitByEventType : limitByEventType) // Check Budget limit pass conditions: ( eval(BooleanLogging.trace(log,DEBUG: + ($limitTypeEnum == ENUM1.BudgetLimitFlag))) and eval(BooleanLogging.trace(log,DEBUG: Always here, right now)) and eval(BooleanLogging.trace(log,DEBUG: + ($limitByEventType == ENUM2._2_EXPOSED))) and Campaign(code == $campaignId, limitTypeEnum == ENUM1.BudgetLimitFlag, limitByEventType == ENUM2._2_EXPOSED) and eval(BooleanLogging.trace(log,DEBUG: Right here, right now)) ) or ( ... ) then ... end The line eval(BooleanLogging.trace(log,DEBUG: + ($limitTypeEnum == ENUM1.BudgetLimitFlag))) evaluates to true in the logs. The line eval(BooleanLogging.trace(log,DEBUG: + ($limitByEventType == ENUM2._2_EXPOSED))) as well. These are java (eval) checks for truth. If I try to use Drools to gain the rete optimization by writing : Campaign(code == $campaignId, limitTypeEnum == ENUM1.BudgetLimitFlag, limitByEventType == ENUM2._2_EXPOSED) , It never reachers past that line. why is that? Can't Drools 3 check for truthness of Enum conditionals ? I would love to supply more information if required. Help is highly appreciated, Maxim. -- Cheers, Maxim Veksler Free as in Freedom - Do u GNU ? ___ 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
[rules-users] Drools error messages no very useful.
Alright so I'm new to Drools and I get this error message. [testng] org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage: [0,-1]: unknown:0:-1 mismatched token: [EMAIL PROTECTED],0:0='no text ,-1,0:-1]; expecting type RIGHT_PAREN What is this supposed to mean? The Drools editor in Eclipse does not show any errors. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Drools-error-messages-no-very-useful.-tp19054317p19054317.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
[rules-users] Drools Eclipse Editor
I find the Editor does not pick up many errors and I need to rely on the compiler most of the time which can be time consuming. Has anyone else experienced this? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Drools-Eclipse-Editor-tp19054433p19054433.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] some basic questions to grouping
1. Rete network is built at rulebase compile time, i.e., when you add packages to the Rulebase: ruleBase.addPackageFromDrl( ... ); // and similar API calls At assert time, the facts are propagated and when you call fireAllRules(), active rules are fired. 2. These are part of the internal optimization algorithms. Let me try to simplify things, but talking about 2 optimizations we have: * node sharing: every time you have the same condition (even among different rules), the engine will try to share them, so that you have it executed only once. Writing conditions in the same order helps to achieve this. So, for the first example, when you have the Gender constraints, it will share the Gender.FEMALE constraints among the 1000 rules and will execute it only once. The Gender.MALE constraint is also executed once, and then you have 2 executions in total. * alpha hashing: this is a bit more complicate, but when you have mutually exclusive constraints on the same field, you know that only one of them is correct. So, if you have 100 different constraints like this: Person( countryOfBirth == Country.CANADA... Person( countryOfBirth == Country.BRAZIL... You know that only one of them will be true. The engine detects that and instead of evaluating every constraint, where 99 of them will fail, it will hash all the constraints. Then, when a fact is asserted (lets say contryOfBirth is BRAZIL), instead of going through all the constraints, it applies the hash function on the attribute value (BRAZIL) and knows where the constraint is. So it will only evaluate that constraint and forget about the others, since they will fail anyway. Having said that, the first example (gender) is also mutually exclusive, but there are only 2 possible values. What happens is that there is a cost to calculate the hash value on the alpha hashing optimization and the cost does not pay off if you have only 2 possible values. In fact, after doing some research we found that the ideal cardinality to activate the alpha hashing optimization is 3, but that is a parameter you can configure using RuleBaseConfiguration (either by API or by a system property). So, by default, that optimization only kicks in when you have 3 or more possible values (like the country of birth) and not with 2 or less (like gender). 3. Sorry, I don't see your attachement. But anyway, rule-flow, agenda-groups and etc are used to control rule firing order, not rule evaluation. Rete will evaluate your rules eagerly, even if your group is not active. In your case, with mutually exclusive constraints in your patterns, you should not worry about that. Let the engine optimize the matching for you. If you find performance problems, then come back and we can see if there is any sub-optimal rules in your rule set. Until then, don't worry with it. []s Edson 2008/8/19 psentosa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jakob, Edson, thanks a lot for your replies especially on agenda vs activation-group :) But please allow me to ask some further questions: 1. The LHS of the rules is evaluated at assert time. When is actually the RETE network built? On assertion, will a fact then be propagated over the network? 2. The example with Gender and countryOfBirth: For the gender example, you said the condition will be executed only twice. So I assumed it's because there are 2 possibilities of gender. But the example with countryOfBirth with 100 possibilities, why only once? 3. Back to my problem I described before: Before I read your reply (Edson's), I try to follow the suggestion from Jakob, namely using the ruleflow-group. So I came up with a the ruleflow-graph I attached (please have a look if you don't mind) http://www.nabble.com/file/p19053522/regulation-check.rfm regulation-check.rfmhttp://www.nabble.com/file/p19053522/regulation-check.rfmregulation-check.rfm. I try to describe the following hierarchy: There are certain rules only for young people; if they are older, than it will be checked, whether he/she is a male/female. Another group of rules is only valid for females, the rest of the rules are valid for both male and female. does the graph correspond correctly to the problem I describe? Is it better to use such grouping or like you said, just write my patterns and constraints as much as possible (without the grouping)? Again thanks in advance! Regards Edson Tirelli-3 wrote: 1. when you are saying rules fire, does this mean: matching/checking the LHS of rule, or executing the RHS of rule Means execute the RHS. The LHS of the rules is evaluated at assert time. Take a look at the docs for more info on that. 2. I plan to use the grouping features of drools, but still not sure.. First a quick explanation: * agenda-groups allow you to control in what order rules are **fired**, because only rules from the active agenda-group are allowed to fire. * activation-groups allow you to create mutually exclusive rules, because when a rule
Re: [rules-users] Drools error messages no very useful.
Well, for 5.0 we rewrote the parser from scratch with much improved error messages... :) Anyway, in your case, are you using DSL? I saw this error before when someone was using a DSL, but calling the DRL API. I.e, they were doing: builder.addPackageFromDrl( drlsource ); instead of the correct (when using DSL): builder.addPackageFromDrl( drlsource, dslsource ); []s Edson 2008/8/19 samd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alright so I'm new to Drools and I get this error message. [testng] org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage: [0,-1]: unknown:0:-1 mismatched token: [EMAIL PROTECTED],0:0='no text ,-1,0:-1]; expecting type RIGHT_PAREN What is this supposed to mean? The Drools editor in Eclipse does not show any errors. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Drools-error-messages-no-very-useful.-tp19054317p19054317.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 -- 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.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Using nested properties on guided editor
Hello there! I'm trying Guvnor 5.0M1 (really nice :)) after reading : http://blog.athico.com/2008/08/machine-learning-and-apache-mahout.html I thought I could use nested objects in my rules. For instance, I have a technical rule: when $t: Trabalho( situacao.dscSituacao == AGUARDANDO APROVAÇÃO ) Situacao( dscSituacao == EM APROVAÇÃO ) then $t.setSituacaoValida(true); But I can't find a way to bind this using guided editor. I add the fact Trabalho, bind it to $t variable, but when selecting a restriction to a field, it ends on situacao, not letting me navigate deeper on the graph. Is this possible? Do I need a latest version on the SVN in order to use this? Best Regards -- In a world without fences and walls, who needs Gates and Windows? ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] new user - running examples
Hello everyone, I am totally new to Drools (I have basic exposure to Java, nothing more), hope that someone helps me with the following problem: I have successfully imported Eclipse plugin and ran the DroolTest.java example in Eclipse Europa (it worked OK). Then I imported Eclipse example (4.0.7) project into Eclipse workspace. But most of .drl files show error markers with messages like: Rule 01:Unable to resolve ObjectType 'Cashflow' (example4.drl) Now when I try to run Example4.java, I get the error: The project: drools-compiler which is referenced by the classpath, does not exist. In Eclipse: menu Project | Properties | Java Build Path | Projects tab shows drools-core and drools-compiler with yellow warning icons. Button Edit is grayed out, there's nothing I can do to fix those items. I have added drools-core-4.0.7.jar and drools-compiler-4.0.7.jar in Add External JARs on Libraries tab, but this does nothing to resolve the problem. How do I fix those problems so I can run examples? Regards, Marcin ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Why can't I filter in my testcases?
I'm seeing where I do something like this:
@Test( groups = { submissionTests } )
public void ifBoWarnOfValidationRules()
{
...
workingMemory.fireAllRules( new RuleNameStartsWithAgendaFilter(
FIFTEEN ) );
}
Other rules that do not begin with FIFTEEN also fire. It is really annoying
since it results in my testcases failing.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Why-can%27t-I-filter-in-my-testcases--tp19059402p19059402.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] Why can't I filter in my testcases?
Actually this appears to happen when I'm asserting into memory.
[testng] org.drools.RuntimeDroolsException: java.lang.NullPointerException
[testng] at
org.drools.rule.EvalCondition.isAllowed(EvalCondition.java:75)
[testng] at
org.drools.reteoo.EvalConditionNode.assertTuple(EvalConditionNode.java:141)
[testng] at
org.drools.reteoo.CompositeTupleSinkAdapter.propagateAssertTuple(CompositeTupleSinkAdap
.java:30)
[testng] at org.drools.reteoo.JoinNode.assertTuple(JoinNode.java:120)
[testng] at
org.drools.reteoo.SingleTupleSinkAdapter.createAndPropagateAssertTuple(SingleTupleSinkA
ter.java:55)
[testng] at
org.drools.reteoo.LeftInputAdapterNode.assertObject(LeftInputAdapterNode.java:131)
[testng] at
org.drools.reteoo.SingleObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject(SingleObjectSinkAdapter
va:20)
[testng] at
org.drools.reteoo.ObjectTypeNode.assertObject(ObjectTypeNode.java:160)
[testng] at org.drools.reteoo.Rete.assertObject(Rete.java:176)
[testng] at
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.assertObject(ReteooRuleBase.java:196)
[testng] at
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory.doInsert(ReteooWorkingMemory.java:70)
[testng] at
org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:854)
[testng] at
org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:826)
[testng] at
org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:627)
samd wrote:
I'm seeing where I do something like this:
@Test( groups = { submissionTests } )
public void ifBoWarnOfValidationRules()
{
...
workingMemory.fireAllRules( new RuleNameStartsWithAgendaFilter(
FIFTEEN ) );
}
Other rules that do not begin with FIFTEEN also fire. It is really
annoying since it results in my testcases failing.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Why-can%27t-I-filter-in-my-testcases--tp19059402p19059745.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
