Re: [rules-users] Unsatisfied rule fires - Drools bug?
Please use the new knowledge API for compiling and building a knowledge
(not: rule) base.
This bug has been fixed for 5.3.0. It is one of several that may occur when
you use 5.2.0 and deviate from the constraint syntax as defined with 5.1.1.
-W
On 26 September 2011 22:51, matvey1414 matvey1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am working with Drools to implement a high-profile rules-engine. I have
two rules defined. Clearly, only the first should fire, but both do. Here
is
my DRL:
package com.sample
import com.sample.DroolsTest.Request;
rule ExpensiveCanonShopper0
when
Request( attributeMap[camera0] == canon
attributeMap[price0] = 500 )
then
System.out.println(ExpensiveCanonShopper0);
end
rule ExpensiveCanonShopper1
when
Request( attributeMap[camera1] == canon
attributeMap[price1] = 500 )
then
System.out.println(ExpensiveCanonShopper1);
end
And the Java class to execute it:
public class DroolsTest {
@SuppressWarnings({ rawtypes, unchecked })
public static final void main(String[] args) {
try {
//Loading the Rules
System.out.println(Loading rules);
RuleBase ruleBase = readRule();
StatelessSession workingMemory =
ruleBase.newStatelessSession();
System.out.println(Firing rules);
Map map = new HashMap();
map.put(camera0, canon);
map.put(price0, 600);
Request request = new Request();
request.setAttributeMap(map);
workingMemory.execute(request);
} catch (Throwable t) {
t.printStackTrace();
}
}
/**
* Please note that this is the “low level” rule assembly API.
*/
private static RuleBase readRule() throws Exception {
//read in the source
Reader source = new FileReader(new File(drl,
Generated.drl));
//optionally read in the DSL (if you are using it).
//Reader dsl = new InputStreamReader(
DroolsTest.class.getResourceAsStream( “/mylang.dsl” ) );
//Use package builder to build up a rule package.
//An alternative lower level class called “DrlParser” can
also be used…
PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder();
//this wil parse and compile in one step
//NOTE: There are 2 methods here, the one argument one is
for normal DRL.
builder.addPackageFromDrl( source );
if (builder.hasErrors()) {
PackageBuilderErrors errors = builder.getErrors();
throw new RuntimeException(Error adding package to
builder: + errors.toString());
}
//Use the following instead of above if you are using a DSL:
//builder.addPackageFromDrl( source, dsl );
//get the compiled package (which is serializable)
Package pkg = builder.getPackage();
//add the package to a rulebase (deploy the rule package).
RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
ruleBase.addPackage( pkg );
return ruleBase;
}
public static class Request {
private Map attributeMap;
public Map getAttributeMap() {
return attributeMap;
}
public void setAttributeMap(Map attributeMap) {
this.attributeMap = attributeMap;
}
}
}
The output is this, meaning both rules fired:
Loading rules
Firing rules
ExpensiveCanonShopper1
ExpensiveCanonShopper0
I have two questions:
1. Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? Only
ExpensiveCanonShopper0 should fire.
2. I am pretty sure this is somehow related to the fact that I'm using Map
attributes, and not POJO to get price0 and camera0. My issue is that I
won't know the parameters in advance (they are coming in a URL), so I can't
pre-declare them, and thus need something dynamic like a Map. Is this how
Drools is intended to be used? The documentation appears very POJO-centric.
I am using Drools 5.2
Thank you!
-Matt
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Unsatisfied-rule-fires-Drools-bug-tp3370653p3370653.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum 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 mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
Please find attached the rule Code (.drl) below. Frequently getting this below Exception while running rules. Exception caught while executing action: org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode$PropagateAction@41c317 java.lang.NullPointerException at org.drools.util.LeftTupleList.toArray(LeftTupleList.java:106) at org.drools.util.LeftTupleList.toArray(LeftTupleList.java:11) at org.drools.reteoo.CollectNode.assertObject(CollectNode.java:256) at org.drools.reteoo.SingleObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject(SingleObjectSinkAdapter.java:42) at org.drools.reteoo.RightInputAdapterNode.assertLeftTuple(RightInputAdapterNode.java:135) at org.drools.reteoo.SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.doPropagateAssertLeftTuple(SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:117) at org.drools.reteoo.SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.propagateAssertLeftTuple(SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:28) at org.drools.reteoo.FromNode.evaluateAndPropagate(FromNode.java:156) at org.drools.reteoo.FromNode.assertLeftTuple(FromNode.java:104) at org.drools.reteoo.CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.doPropagateAssertLeftTuple(CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:145) at org.drools.reteoo.CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.propagateAssertLeftTuple(CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:39) at org.drools.reteoo.JoinNode.assertObject(JoinNode.java:175) at org.drools.reteoo.SingleObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject(SingleObjectSinkAdapter.java:42) at org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode$AssertAction.execute(PropagationQueuingNode.java:326) at org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode.propagateActions(PropagationQueuingNode.java:221) at org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode$PropagateAction.execute(PropagationQueuingNode.java:394) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.executeQueuedActions(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:1486) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:158) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:122) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:80) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:28) at org.mule.module.drools.Drools.assertEvent(Drools.java:165) at org.mule.module.bpm.Rules.handleEvent(Rules.java:131) at org.mule.module.bpm.RulesComponent.doInvoke(RulesComponent.java:84) at org.mule.component.AbstractComponent.invokeInternal(AbstractComponent.java:120) at org.mule.component.AbstractComponent.access$000(AbstractComponent.java:56) at org.mule.component.AbstractComponent$1$1.process(AbstractComponent.java:234) at org.mule.processor.chain.DefaultMessageProcessorChain.doProcess(DefaultMessageProcessorChain.java:88) at org.mule.processor.chain.AbstractMessageProcessorChain.process(AbstractMessageProcessorChain.java:89) at org.mule.processor.chain.InterceptingChainLifecycleWrapper.doProcess(InterceptingChainLifecycleWrapper.java:63) at org.mule.processor.chain.AbstractMessageProcessorChain.process(AbstractMessageProcessorChain.java:89) at org.mule.processor.chain.InterceptingChainLifecycleWrapper.process(InterceptingChainLifecycleWrapper.java:94) at org.mule.component.AbstractComponent.process(AbstractComponent.java:154) at org.mule.processor.AbstractInterceptingMessageProcessor.processNext(AbstractInterceptingMessageProcessor.java:93) at org.mule.interceptor.AbstractEnvelopeInterceptor.process(AbstractEnvelopeInterceptor.java:55) at org.mule.processor.AsyncInterceptingMessageProcessor.processNextTimed(AsyncInterceptingMessageProcessor.java:118) at org.mule.processor.SedaStageInterceptingMessageProcessor$SedaStageWorker.doWork(SedaStageInterceptingMessageProcessor.java:197) at org.mule.processor.SedaStageInterceptingMessageProcessor$SedaStageWorker.doRun(SedaStageInterceptingMessageProcessor.java:178) at org.mule.work.AbstractMuleEventWork.run(AbstractMuleEventWork.java:43) at org.mule.work.WorkerContext.run(WorkerContext.java:309) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619) http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n3372189/sensors.drl sensors.drl -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Getting-Exception-while-running-rules-continuously-on-the-Event-Streams-from-Mule-Component-tp3372189p3372189.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
Drools version? Looks like a bug, I've seen similar NPE reports. -W On 27 September 2011 12:23, Hari Kishan harikishan.tamm...@pass-consulting.com wrote: Please find attached the rule Code (.drl) below. Frequently getting this below Exception while running rules. Exception caught while executing action: org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode$PropagateAction@41c317 java.lang.NullPointerException at org.drools.util.LeftTupleList.toArray(LeftTupleList.java:106) at org.drools.util.LeftTupleList.toArray(LeftTupleList.java:11) at org.drools.reteoo.CollectNode.assertObject(CollectNode.java:256) at org.drools.reteoo.SingleObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject(SingleObjectSinkAdapter.java:42) at org.drools.reteoo.RightInputAdapterNode.assertLeftTuple(RightInputAdapterNode.java:135) at org.drools.reteoo.SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.doPropagateAssertLeftTuple(SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:117) at org.drools.reteoo.SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.propagateAssertLeftTuple(SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:28) at org.drools.reteoo.FromNode.evaluateAndPropagate(FromNode.java:156) at org.drools.reteoo.FromNode.assertLeftTuple(FromNode.java:104) at org.drools.reteoo.CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.doPropagateAssertLeftTuple(CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:145) at org.drools.reteoo.CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.propagateAssertLeftTuple(CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:39) at org.drools.reteoo.JoinNode.assertObject(JoinNode.java:175) at org.drools.reteoo.SingleObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject(SingleObjectSinkAdapter.java:42) at org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode$AssertAction.execute(PropagationQueuingNode.java:326) at org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode.propagateActions(PropagationQueuingNode.java:221) at org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode$PropagateAction.execute(PropagationQueuingNode.java:394) at org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.executeQueuedActions(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:1486) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:158) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:122) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:80) at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:28) at org.mule.module.drools.Drools.assertEvent(Drools.java:165) at org.mule.module.bpm.Rules.handleEvent(Rules.java:131) at org.mule.module.bpm.RulesComponent.doInvoke(RulesComponent.java:84) at org.mule.component.AbstractComponent.invokeInternal(AbstractComponent.java:120) at org.mule.component.AbstractComponent.access$000(AbstractComponent.java:56) at org.mule.component.AbstractComponent$1$1.process(AbstractComponent.java:234) at org.mule.processor.chain.DefaultMessageProcessorChain.doProcess(DefaultMessageProcessorChain.java:88) at org.mule.processor.chain.AbstractMessageProcessorChain.process(AbstractMessageProcessorChain.java:89) at org.mule.processor.chain.InterceptingChainLifecycleWrapper.doProcess(InterceptingChainLifecycleWrapper.java:63) at org.mule.processor.chain.AbstractMessageProcessorChain.process(AbstractMessageProcessorChain.java:89) at org.mule.processor.chain.InterceptingChainLifecycleWrapper.process(InterceptingChainLifecycleWrapper.java:94) at org.mule.component.AbstractComponent.process(AbstractComponent.java:154) at org.mule.processor.AbstractInterceptingMessageProcessor.processNext(AbstractInterceptingMessageProcessor.java:93) at org.mule.interceptor.AbstractEnvelopeInterceptor.process(AbstractEnvelopeInterceptor.java:55) at org.mule.processor.AsyncInterceptingMessageProcessor.processNextTimed(AsyncInterceptingMessageProcessor.java:118) at org.mule.processor.SedaStageInterceptingMessageProcessor$SedaStageWorker.doWork(SedaStageInterceptingMessageProcessor.java:197) at org.mule.processor.SedaStageInterceptingMessageProcessor$SedaStageWorker.doRun(SedaStageInterceptingMessageProcessor.java:178) at org.mule.work.AbstractMuleEventWork.run(AbstractMuleEventWork.java:43) at org.mule.work.WorkerContext.run(WorkerContext.java:309) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:619) http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n3372189/sensors.drl sensors.drl -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Getting-Exception-while-running-rules-continuously-on-the-Event-Streams-from-Mule-Component-tp3372189p3372189.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org
Re: [rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
I also was getting this error. I brought out package building logic to execute
once, and KnowledgeSession realted logic to repeat the required number of times.
Seems there required some delay in preparing rules related classes into one
package during iteration. Above step was working fine for me.
Pseudo code:
KnowledgeBuilder kbuilder =
KnowledgeBuilderFactory.newKnowledgeBuilder();
// this will parse and compile in one step
// get the compiled packages (which are serializable)
CollectionKnowledgePackage pkgs = null;
// add the packages to a knowledgebase (deploy the knowledge packages).
KnowledgeBase kbase = null;
StatefulKnowledgeSession ksession = null;
// constructor to be called once
public RuleEngine (byte[] rules) {
kbuilder.add(ResourceFactory.newByteArrayResource(rules),ResourceType.DRL);
// Check the builder for errors
if (kbuilder.hasErrors()) {
System.out.println(kbuilder.getErrors().toString());
throw new RuntimeException(Unable to compile drl.);
}
pkgs = kbuilder.getKnowledgePackages();
// add the packages to a knowledgebase (deploy the knowledge
packages).
kbase = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase();
kbase.addKnowledgePackages(pkgs);
}
// this method will be called required number of times
public void fire(Object obj) {
ksession = kbase.newStatefulKnowledgeSession();
ksession.addEventListener(new DebugAgendaEventListener());
ksession.addEventListener(new DebugWorkingMemoryEventListener());
// setup the audit logging
//KnowledgeRuntimeLogger logger =
KnowledgeRuntimeLoggerFactory.newFileLogger(ksession, log/drools.log);
ksession.insert(obj);
ksession.fireAllRules();
//logger.close();
ksession.dispose();
}
Check this out.
Thanks Regards
Santhosh
From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:10 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously
on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
Drools version?
Looks like a bug, I've seen similar NPE reports.
-W
On 27 September 2011 12:23, Hari Kishan
harikishan.tamm...@pass-consulting.commailto:harikishan.tamm...@pass-consulting.com
wrote:
Please find attached the rule Code (.drl) below.
Frequently getting this below Exception while running rules.
Exception caught while executing action:
org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode$PropagateAction@41c317mailto:org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode$PropagateAction@41c317
java.lang.NullPointerException
at org.drools.util.LeftTupleList.toArray(LeftTupleList.java:106)
at org.drools.util.LeftTupleList.toArray(LeftTupleList.java:11)
at org.drools.reteoo.CollectNode.assertObject(CollectNode.java:256)
at
org.drools.reteoo.SingleObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject(SingleObjectSinkAdapter.java:42)
at
org.drools.reteoo.RightInputAdapterNode.assertLeftTuple(RightInputAdapterNode.java:135)
at
org.drools.reteoo.SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.doPropagateAssertLeftTuple(SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:117)
at
org.drools.reteoo.SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.propagateAssertLeftTuple(SingleLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:28)
at org.drools.reteoo.FromNode.evaluateAndPropagate(FromNode.java:156)
at org.drools.reteoo.FromNode.assertLeftTuple(FromNode.java:104)
at
org.drools.reteoo.CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.doPropagateAssertLeftTuple(CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:145)
at
org.drools.reteoo.CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.propagateAssertLeftTuple(CompositeLeftTupleSinkAdapter.java:39)
at org.drools.reteoo.JoinNode.assertObject(JoinNode.java:175)
at
org.drools.reteoo.SingleObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject(SingleObjectSinkAdapter.java:42)
at
org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode$AssertAction.execute(PropagationQueuingNode.java:326)
at
org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode.propagateActions(PropagationQueuingNode.java:221)
at
org.drools.reteoo.PropagationQueuingNode$PropagateAction.execute(PropagationQueuingNode.java:394)
at
org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.executeQueuedActions(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:1486)
at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:158)
at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:122)
at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:80)
at org.drools.common.NamedEntryPoint.insert(NamedEntryPoint.java:28)
at org.mule.module.drools.Drools.assertEvent(Drools.java:165)
at org.mule.module.bpm.Rules.handleEvent(Rules.java:131)
at org.mule.module.bpm.RulesComponent.doInvoke(RulesComponent.java:84)
at
Re: [rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
*Drools Version : 5.0.1 * *The Drools API used in Mule *: drools-api-5.0.1.jar drools-compiler-5.0.1.jar drools-core-5.0.1.jar -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Getting-Exception-while-running-rules-continuously-on-the-Event-Streams-from-Mule-Component-tp3372189p3372442.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
It may be worth you trying a later version of drools to see whether the issue still exists - there have been quite a few bug fixes since then! In theory it shouldn't be too much work to change - check the release notes for maven group/project id changes, but there are some subtle differences in some of the rule syntax validation in places which may or may not make it painful. Thomas -Original Message- From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users- boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Hari Kishan Sent: 27 September 2011 13:33 To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component. *Drools Version : 5.0.1 * *The Drools API used in Mule *: drools-api-5.0.1.jar drools-compiler-5.0.1.jar drools-core-5.0.1.jar -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Getting- Exception-while-running-rules-continuously-on-the-Event-Streams-from- Mule-Component-tp3372189p3372442.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ** This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the postmas...@nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00 ** ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Partial Unification / Derivation of Facts?
NOTE: Reposted because I only just subscribed to the mailing list. Hello, I have a set of Fact types which represent factors matched and used throughout the other rules. Each of these Fact types may be derived in a variety of mutually exclusive ways--ie based on the line of business or other factors. The rules are all well-defined for these Facts. Something like this: declare FactorType1 value : BigDecimal end rule FactorType1 when LineOfBusiness( this == LineOfBusiness.LOB1 ) // some other conditions $prms : Params() // ***provisional*** where to specify needed context dependent parameters? see below then BigDecimal value = new BigDecimal(0); // ... determine value based on conditions and $prms insert( new FactorType1(value) ); end // some other mutually exclusive rules to derive FactorType1 here The problem is that in the rules which match these Facts, there are many context dependent (ie *always* unique to that particular rule) parameters which must be passed to the derivation of those Facts. I'm referring to these as Params above. Now, a rule that uses FactorType1: rule a rule that uses FactorType1 when // some conditions FactorType1( $value ) $prms : Params(prm1,prm2,prm3,...) // ***provisional*** how to indicate that FactorType1 should use these parameters in its derivation? then // perform some calculation with $value end The parameters which these Facts use cannot be asserted as Facts themselves. They are unique to the rules which match on the FactorTypes, so that would mean I'd need a duplicate rule for every rule that uses a FactorType (even with rule inheritance, this is excessive). It's almost as if I need to specify a partial derivation or partial unification of the Fact type, which is only asserted once a rule indicates that it is providing the unbound portion of the derivation. I understand queries can be used for some sort of partial unification, but I have no clue how to apply them to my problem and I can't find any good examples or documentation on their usage/behavior. Thanks in advance -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Partial-Unification-Derivation-of-Facts-tp3372546p3372546.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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] Not able to call parameterizied Java method in LHS
I tried to invoke parameterizied call to the java method and tried to compare the return parameter from the method in the 'eval' function..The rule is not getting executed .. I am not sure if it is unable to invoke the java method and fetch the return parameter or there is an issue with rule syntax.. Please help me in this regard. LHS of the rule : ** import com.customObject rule A when $B : customObject() eval($B.getValue(Database).equals(ORACLE)) then System.out.println(The database object is oracle) end -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Not-able-to-call-parameterizied-Java-method-in-LHS-tp3372552p3372552.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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] Partial Unification / Derivation of Facts?
It's almost as if I need to specify a partial derivation or partial unification of the Fact type, which is only asserted once a rule indicates that it is providing the unbound portion of the derivation. I understand queries can be used for some sort of partial unification, but I have no clue how to apply them to my problem and I can't find any good examples or documentation on their usage/behavior. I don't fully understand what you are trying to achieve, but I think what you are asking for is the Trait support that has just been introduced in the latest release? Have a look at the latest release notes and see if that helps you. Thomas ** This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the postmas...@nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00 ** ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Partial Unification / Derivation of Facts?
This uses several terms I'm not familiar with in this context, but it seems that 1. a ule uniquely determines a Class to be instantiated on its RHS 2. a set of parameters is required that, in turn, depends on the Class determined according to (1). I do not understand why these parameters cannot be inserted as facts. Each parameter set (!) would be a fact with one field containing the Class, and this could be matched in the rule, passing parameters to the processing to be done in the same rule. $p: Params( clazz == (FactorType1.class), $pSet: paramSet ) -W On 27 September 2011 15:11, JohnnyCaimbridge nbo...@nycm.com wrote: NOTE: Reposted because I only just subscribed to the mailing list. Hello, I have a set of Fact types which represent factors matched and used throughout the other rules. Each of these Fact types may be derived in a variety of mutually exclusive ways--ie based on the line of business or other factors. The rules are all well-defined for these Facts. Something like this: declare FactorType1 value : BigDecimal end rule FactorType1 when LineOfBusiness( this == LineOfBusiness.LOB1 ) // some other conditions $prms : Params() // ***provisional*** where to specify needed context dependent parameters? see below then BigDecimal value = new BigDecimal(0); // ... determine value based on conditions and $prms insert( new FactorType1(value) ); end // some other mutually exclusive rules to derive FactorType1 here The problem is that in the rules which match these Facts, there are many context dependent (ie *always* unique to that particular rule) parameters which must be passed to the derivation of those Facts. I'm referring to these as Params above. Now, a rule that uses FactorType1: rule a rule that uses FactorType1 when // some conditions FactorType1( $value ) $prms : Params(prm1,prm2,prm3,...) // ***provisional*** how to indicate that FactorType1 should use these parameters in its derivation? then // perform some calculation with $value end The parameters which these Facts use cannot be asserted as Facts themselves. They are unique to the rules which match on the FactorTypes, so that would mean I'd need a duplicate rule for every rule that uses a FactorType (even with rule inheritance, this is excessive). It's almost as if I need to specify a partial derivation or partial unification of the Fact type, which is only asserted once a rule indicates that it is providing the unbound portion of the derivation. I understand queries can be used for some sort of partial unification, but I have no clue how to apply them to my problem and I can't find any good examples or documentation on their usage/behavior. Thanks in advance -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Partial-Unification-Derivation-of-Facts-tp3372546p3372546.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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 mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Not able to call parameterizied Java method in LHS
What do you get when you omit the eval and print the return value of $B.getValue(Database)? -W On 27 September 2011 15:14, Tinku dibya@gmail.com wrote: I tried to invoke parameterizied call to the java method and tried to compare the return parameter from the method in the 'eval' function..The rule is not getting executed .. I am not sure if it is unable to invoke the java method and fetch the return parameter or there is an issue with rule syntax.. Please help me in this regard. LHS of the rule : ** import com.customObject rule A when $B : customObject() eval($B.getValue(Database).equals(ORACLE)) then System.out.println(The database object is oracle) end -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Not-able-to-call-parameterizied-Java-method-in-LHS-tp3372552p3372552.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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 mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
@Thomas, Those Drools library is part of the Mule ESB 3.2.0 I think it would be very risky to change the libraries. As there might be some version dependencies (Compatibility issues). If you have any other idea of how to fix it In the mean while I will checking by replacing the drools library and check it. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Getting-Exception-while-running-rules-continuously-on-the-Event-Streams-from-Mule-Component-tp3372189p3372668.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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] java.lang.IncompatibleClassChangeError: Found interface org.drools.reteoo.LeftTuple, but class was expected
I finally found the root cause. The reason was incompatibility between model classes uploaded to guvnor and classes referenced by client application (The model classes in client app implement additionally Serializable interface required by JPAKnowledgeSession). So the root cause was slightly different than what I found in logs. I'm wondering if this is possible to make the error more accurate in such situation. Is it drools or java who throws this exception? /danielje -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/java-lang-IncompatibleClassChangeError-Found-interface-org-drools-reteoo-LeftTuple-but-class-was-expd-tp3358026p3372680.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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] Not able to call parameterizied Java method in LHS
There was an issue within the class that was used to insert the facts..Hence the value was not inserted properly.. The result of the printing the value is now as 'ORACLE'.. Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Not-able-to-call-parameterizied-Java-method-in-LHS-tp3372552p3372683.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
Hi Thomas, Those Drools library is part of the Mule ESB 3.2.0 I think it would be very risky to change the libraries. As there might be some version dependencies (Compatibility issues). If you have any other idea of how to fix it In the mean while I will checking by replacing the drools library and check it. Thanks Regards, Hari Kishan T -Original Message- From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Swindells, Thomas Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:40 PM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component. It may be worth you trying a later version of drools to see whether the issue still exists - there have been quite a few bug fixes since then! In theory it shouldn't be too much work to change - check the release notes for maven group/project id changes, but there are some subtle differences in some of the rule syntax validation in places which may or may not make it painful. Thomas -Original Message- From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users- boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Hari Kishan Sent: 27 September 2011 13:33 To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component. *Drools Version : 5.0.1 * *The Drools API used in Mule *: drools-api-5.0.1.jar drools-compiler-5.0.1.jar drools-core-5.0.1.jar -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Getting- Exception-while-running-rules-continuously-on-the-Event-Streams-from- Mule-Component-tp3372189p3372442.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ** This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the postmas...@nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00 ** ___ 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] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
Looking at the rule I see that you don't really need $activeAlarms : ArrayList() except for computing $alarms : ArrayList(). Try doing this by a single collect, putting all constraints into the Alarm() pattern. -W On 27 September 2011 15:55, HariKishan harikishan.tamm...@pass-consulting.com wrote: Hi Thomas, Those Drools library is part of the Mule ESB 3.2.0 I think it would be very risky to change the libraries. As there might be some version dependencies (Compatibility issues). If you have any other idea of how to fix it In the mean while I will checking by replacing the drools library and check it. Thanks Regards, Hari Kishan T -Original Message- From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Swindells, Thomas Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 6:40 PM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component. It may be worth you trying a later version of drools to see whether the issue still exists - there have been quite a few bug fixes since then! In theory it shouldn't be too much work to change - check the release notes for maven group/project id changes, but there are some subtle differences in some of the rule syntax validation in places which may or may not make it painful. Thomas -Original Message- From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users- boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Hari Kishan Sent: 27 September 2011 13:33 To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component. *Drools Version : 5.0.1 * *The Drools API used in Mule *: drools-api-5.0.1.jar drools-compiler-5.0.1.jar drools-core-5.0.1.jar -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Getting- Exception-while-running-rules-continuously-on-the-Event-Streams-from- Mule-Component-tp3372189p3372442.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ** This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the postmas...@nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00 ** ___ 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] Partial Unification / Derivation of Facts?
Let me start from scratch as I'm realizing how difficult it is to understand my issue. There is a Fact A with some rules use as conditions. A can be derived in several different but mutually exclusive ways. For the most part, the rules which define each of these derivations depend on states/conditions which the rules matching on A are largely agnostic of. rule rule deriving A when //some conditions then insert( new A(/*some values*/) ); end rule another rule driving A when //some other conditions then insert( new A(/*some other values*/) ); end // many other rules deriving A However, there are also other parameters/values needed for the computation of the many derivations of A (they need to be present in the RHSs of rules deriving A). The combination of these values are context-dependent to each matching of A /every time/. That is, each matching of A has a unique set of values binded to a particular set of parameters expected by rules deriving A). Rules deriving A need not and should not match on these parameters because they are different for every matching of A; the derivations should (ideally) take on whatever values are specified in the matching. rule rule matching on A when $a : A() // needs to somehow convey to the derivation of A() that it should use a set of values unique to this matching in its derivation then // use $a end rule another rule matching on A when $a : A() // needs to somehow convey to the derivation of A() that it should use a set of values unique to this matching in its derivation then // use $a end I cannot leave it up to the rules deriving A to handle every single case of different values for these parameters--there would be thousands of different combinations of derivations of A and nobody would understand the code. The rules deriving A cannot match on general Parameter objects because the values in the Parameter objects are unique for each matching of A. This would mean that each rule matching A would need a counterpart rule which asserts the parameters/values needed by the rules deriving A. I mean, I suppose this /is/ a solution, but it's obviously difficult to understand design. I guess what I'm looking for is something inbetween a function (with explicitly binded parameters) and a derivation that is rule based--to be able to say derive this kind of object in any way that you can, but use these particular values in its derivation. Perhaps this is not possible. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Partial-Unification-Derivation-of-Facts-tp3372546p3372828.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
After Changing to a single Collect ... The Issue is still reoccurring. *But some Observations *:- 1) Every thing works fine till some time . Suddenly the first time exception comes ,that is it always the same exception keeps popping . The rules weren't executed i hope may be the Context is lost or something . (Note :- The above observation is irrespective of the change which i have done now) 2) when there are 2 Collects , the Exception seem to arrive much earlier that is (i.e 5-6 mins after the server session started), but after changing to single Collect the Exception arrived after a long time ( i.e 15 mins after the server session started) .. May be this is one time observation, just want to give you some information which may help you suggest me something. 3) The lesser the number of conditions the greater the stability of the application. Drools I think is used for more complex scenarios of the real world. Our application should not overload the complexity i guess. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Getting-Exception-while-running-rules-continuously-on-the-Event-Streams-from-Mule-Component-tp3372189p3372930.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
On 27 September 2011 17:25, Hari Kishan harikishan.tamm...@pass-consulting.com wrote: After Changing to a single Collect ... The Issue is still reoccurring. Another alternative is to use an accumulate to compose the List by init - action - reverse - result. Perhaps this isn't as vulnerable as collect appears to be. -W *But some Observations *:- 1) Every thing works fine till some time . Suddenly the first time exception comes ,that is it always the same exception keeps popping . The rules weren't executed i hope may be the Context is lost or something . (Note :- The above observation is irrespective of the change which i have done now) 2) when there are 2 Collects , the Exception seem to arrive much earlier that is (i.e 5-6 mins after the server session started), but after changing to single Collect the Exception arrived after a long time ( i.e 15 mins after the server session started) .. May be this is one time observation, just want to give you some information which may help you suggest me something. 3) The lesser the number of conditions the greater the stability of the application. Drools I think is used for more complex scenarios of the real world. Our application should not overload the complexity i guess. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Getting-Exception-while-running-rules-continuously-on-the-Event-Streams-from-Mule-Component-tp3372189p3372930.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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 mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Partial Unification / Derivation of Facts?
All right: if it is the matching rule that defines the parameter set you can either define the parameters literally in that rule or you can create a lookup-table with the rule name as its key. You can obtain the rule name generically on the RHS, and you can write some code to make sure that all matching rules identified by some code in their name have an entry, etc. The deriving rules don't matter - there is no 1:1-correspondence between them and the matching ones. -W On 27 September 2011 16:53, JohnnyCaimbridge nbo...@nycm.com wrote: Let me start from scratch as I'm realizing how difficult it is to understand my issue. There is a Fact A with some rules use as conditions. A can be derived in several different but mutually exclusive ways. For the most part, the rules which define each of these derivations depend on states/conditions which the rules matching on A are largely agnostic of. rule rule deriving A when //some conditions then insert( new A(/*some values*/) ); end rule another rule driving A when //some other conditions then insert( new A(/*some other values*/) ); end // many other rules deriving A However, there are also other parameters/values needed for the computation of the many derivations of A (they need to be present in the RHSs of rules deriving A). The combination of these values are context-dependent to each matching of A /every time/. That is, each matching of A has a unique set of values binded to a particular set of parameters expected by rules deriving A). Rules deriving A need not and should not match on these parameters because they are different for every matching of A; the derivations should (ideally) take on whatever values are specified in the matching. rule rule matching on A when $a : A() // needs to somehow convey to the derivation of A() that it should use a set of values unique to this matching in its derivation then // use $a end rule another rule matching on A when $a : A() // needs to somehow convey to the derivation of A() that it should use a set of values unique to this matching in its derivation then // use $a end I cannot leave it up to the rules deriving A to handle every single case of different values for these parameters--there would be thousands of different combinations of derivations of A and nobody would understand the code. The rules deriving A cannot match on general Parameter objects because the values in the Parameter objects are unique for each matching of A. This would mean that each rule matching A would need a counterpart rule which asserts the parameters/values needed by the rules deriving A. I mean, I suppose this /is/ a solution, but it's obviously difficult to understand design. I guess what I'm looking for is something inbetween a function (with explicitly binded parameters) and a derivation that is rule based--to be able to say derive this kind of object in any way that you can, but use these particular values in its derivation. Perhaps this is not possible. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Partial-Unification-Derivation-of-Facts-tp3372546p3372828.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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 mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Getting Exception while running rules continuously on the Event Streams from Mule Component.
Thanks for your Immediate support . will take your suggestion . change the collect implementation and try . will get back to you incase of any more help. once again thankful for your support. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Getting-Exception-while-running-rules-continuously-on-the-Event-Streams-from-Mule-Component-tp3372189p3373059.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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] Partial Unification / Derivation of Facts?
How would I go about implementing the first part to your solution? (where you say if it is the 'matching' rule that defines the parameter set you can define the parameters literally in that rule) I am not aware of any syntax that would permit this type of behavior--that would allow me to (in the matching rule's condition) literally define the values the rules deriving A should use, instead of the deriving rule matching it against working memory (ie to indicate from the matching rule that the derivation rule should always use a certain value as a condition rather than matching against working memory). Given: rule derivation rule when $prm1 : Param1() then insert( new A($prm1) ); end , the following indicates that working memory should be pattern matched for an A with getParam1() == new Param1(val). Of course, this is not my desired functionality: rule matching rule 1 when A( param1 == new Param1(val) ) then // do w/e end What I would like to see is--given the derivation rule above--something like this: rule matching rule 2 when $a : A( param1 := new Param1(val) ) then // do something with $a end ^ Ideally this would tell the rule derivation rule to attempt to derive A(), but under the assumption that param1 should be initialized with new Param1(val) as opposed to strictly matching for it in WM. However, the more I look at this, more it seems like backward chaining is necessary... -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Partial-Unification-Derivation-of-Facts-tp3372546p3373242.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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] Partial Unification / Derivation of Facts?
You insert some A(), and you can't match an A unless it has been inserted and is in working memory. I can't follow you here any more - sometimes things appear to depend on the rule alone; sometimes (as below) an inserted A is a function of a matched Param1(). It's impossible to understand things if they aren't fully put on the table. -W On 27 September 2011 18:55, JohnnyCaimbridge nbo...@nycm.com wrote: How would I go about implementing the first part to your solution? (where you say if it is the 'matching' rule that defines the parameter set you can define the parameters literally in that rule) I am not aware of any syntax that would permit this type of behavior--that would allow me to (in the matching rule's condition) literally define the values the rules deriving A should use, instead of the deriving rule matching it against working memory (ie to indicate from the matching rule that the derivation rule should always use a certain value as a condition rather than matching against working memory). Given: rule derivation rule when $prm1 : Param1() then insert( new A($prm1) ); end , the following indicates that working memory should be pattern matched for an A with getParam1() == new Param1(val). Of course, this is not my desired functionality: rule matching rule 1 when A( param1 == new Param1(val) ) then // do w/e end What I would like to see is--given the derivation rule above--something like this: rule matching rule 2 when $a : A( param1 := new Param1(val) ) then // do something with $a end ^ Ideally this would tell the rule derivation rule to attempt to derive A(), but under the assumption that param1 should be initialized with new Param1(val) as opposed to strictly matching for it in WM. However, the more I look at this, more it seems like backward chaining is necessary... -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Partial-Unification-Derivation-of-Facts-tp3372546p3373242.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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 mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Partial Unification / Derivation of Facts?
Well, just going back and forth and taking the time to explain my issue / the functionality I had in mind has helped significantly in my own understanding, and at the very least I am now confident in what sort of limitations there are. So, I don't consider this time a waste, and thanks for trying to understand me. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Partial-Unification-Derivation-of-Facts-tp3372546p3373529.html Sent from the Drools: User forum 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] Not able to call parameterizied Java method in LHS
Assuming callA() and callB() are methods on $C, you are missing a comma
in between them.
modify ($C)
{
callA(UNIX),
callB(PERL)
}
Edson
2011/9/27 Tinku dibya@gmail.com
I try to add two java method calls in the RHS of the rule .It doesnot allow
me to save the DRL file in eclipse .It complaints Multiple Markers at this
line.
However ,commenting one of the method in the RHS works fine ,with-out any
issue..
Could you pls help me in this..
Example :
when
$B : customObject()
$C :result()
eval($B.getValue(Database).equals(ORACLE))
then
modify ($C)
{
callA(UNIX)
callB(PERL)
}
end
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Not-able-to-call-parameterizied-Java-method-in-LHS-tp3372552p3374183.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum 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 by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Job opening to work on Drools jBPM in Argentina
One of the largest healthcare organisations in Argentina is looking to find two senior developers, full time, to work on Drools and jBPM. The position is a long term contractual one and you must be based in Buenos Aries, Argentina The work is for RD enhancements to Drools and jBPM, not for building end user applications. It involves developing next generation authoring environments for rules, workflow and the semantic web. The ideal candidates would have a mixed set of skills including java, gwt and javascript. Knowledge of Drools and jBPM is a plus, but not mandatory. You will work day to day with the Drools and jBPM team, as part of their community. All your work will be open source and you'll be able to evangelise your work via community facilities, such as mailing lists and blogs. This provides a unique opportunity to work on high profile projects in a public manner and gain recognition for yourself and your work. You can apply for the job here : http://jobs.athico.com/job/senior-java-and-javascript-developer-to-work-on-ciudad-aut-noma-de-017e8dd315 http://jobs.athico.com/job/senior-java-and-javascript-developer-to-work-on-ciudad-aut-noma-de-017e8dd315 ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
