Re: [rules-users] Help please!!!
Hi Toni, It's very interesting to know it. It is possible that it is a bug. I did the test several times but the results are the same. Best regard -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Help-please-tp4018136p4018245.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] Workitems doesn't get persisted when completing a task after rehydrating a knowledge session is some circumstances.
Mauricio, seems to me that you're upset. I'm really sorry, I didn't mean it. I didn't mean this thread to become a fud or some kind of rant. Comments inline: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Mauricio Salatino sala...@gmail.comwrote: What I've noticed in the past, doing consulting is that people wants to migrate from jBPM3 that is almost stateless to jBPM5 and have everything inside a Stateful session with a richer context and expect that everything will work in the same way. If you run each of your process instances in different stateful sessions (with local ht) you will have something similar to what jBPM3 does, extremely reduced and isolated context. Now if you want to add Rules and Events into the mix you will need to learn how Rules and Events works and how they are mixed with processes inside the stateful session. You cannot expect that all those features and the mix works in the same way as jBPM3 (just a stateless process engine) works, right? That's offensive :(. You're making uninformed assumptions about our experiences with JBPM Drools, both isolated and mixed, and our expectatives for the migration of our system from JBPM v3 to v5. We obviously were expecting some changes and some bugs. We were definetly not expecting such, IMHO, hard issues with the execution of long-running processes when persistence configured just because how the approach for mixing Drools JBPM solution for persistence was done. This makes the system not fault tolerant, at least not without some pain and I agree in certain ( but not rare ) configurations. I've also notice that this is a step-by-step learning process, once you master BPMN2 and how process works inside the process engine you can move to Rules and then to Events, learning in the middle the technical and logical requirements of each of them. Most of the time the solution is understanding how the components interact and can be mixed. I know that this is difficult sometime, because of the diversity of the technologies that are being mixed here. If you can create a test that shows the problems that you are mentioning here, we can discuss why or why not this is a good or a wrong approach and find bugs in case that you find one. If you are in a hurry and you think that what you are trying to solve are problems, good luck with finding the tricks. OK, let's call this a bug. We believe in open source, that's why we chose Drools JBPM in favor of other privative solutions. Hey!, At least here we have the chance to hack the code for dirty tricks! ;-). We also believe in an open and honest discussion of issues like this in this kind of projects. As you may know making a test case that reflects the situation mentioned in this thread takes time, is far from trivial, we really are in a hurry and deadlines are aproaching. I personally assigned resources in my team for making such tests and will create issues in Jira when available. Cheers Let me finish quoting with one of your previous messages: Keep your mind open, because there is no single solution for all the problems, which I agree. On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Alberto R. Galdo arga...@gmail.comwrote: We're in a hurry now to make our system work, unfortunately seems that we will be doing dirty tricks as this one for some time ... we'll open an issue whenever a test can be produced ... We were running our system using JBPM 3 and both the integration and the persistence there were seamsly done. Our system has high availability constraints that forces us to be fault tolerant ( that includes running the human task server and process manager in different machines ) and when migrating to JBPM 5 we began to face ugly race conditions and rare transactional problems ... we honestly thought that must be our fault, that's why we opened this thread, just to check if someone had this problems and make ourselves wrong or found another solution. On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Mauricio Salatino sala...@gmail.comwrote: So, can you create an isolated test where you reproduce: We are unable to complete a human task after rehydrating a Drools knowledge session because in some circunstances the generated Drools' workitems don't get persisted in the database after the completion of a previous task And I can take a look on that.. Please create Jira issue for that. Without a concrete situation it's very difficult to analyze.. Did you check your transactions not being rolledback.. That's the only situation where I think that the workItem information will not be persisted. Cheers On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Alberto R. Galdo arga...@gmail.comwrote: Sure, WorkItemHandlers are never persisted. I re-register those handlers before staring the session, just because I want my tasks to be properly executed. :( Alberto R. Galdo arga...@gmail.com On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Mauricio Salatino sala...@gmail.comwrote:
Re: [rules-users] Write Assumptions for NESTED ListObject
The Java code as shown has a somewhat unlikely flavour, with
OrderLineMeasure containing the field ListOrderLineMeasure. And the
names used in the rules don't match the Java code, e.g.,
getUBLRuleEnginePriority().
And why should a String field quantity indicate the size of a List?
But see below for a (better) way of writing these rules.
On 26/06/2012, aliosha79 alex_orl1...@yahoo.it wrote:
Hi i have these simple three POJO class. The first is an OrderType that
cointains a List or OrderLineType and each orderline cointains a list
of measures.
/public class OrderType {
protected ListOrderLineType OrderLine;
protected String priority;
public void set
public ListOrderlineType get
publicgetPriority()...
publicsetPriority()...
}
public class OrderLineType {
protected String Quantity;
protected ListOrderLineMeasure OrderLineMeasure;
public void set
public ListOrderLineMeasure get
publicgetQuantity()...
publicsetQuantity()...
}
public class OrderLineMeasure {
protected int measure;
protected ListOrderLineMeasure OrderLineMeasure;
publicgetMeasure()...
publicsetMeasure()...
} /
I want to write an assumption stating that:
*If an ORDER contains at least 3 orderLine... the order must have the High
Priority.* In can do that writing this rule:
___
/when
$Order : OrderType ($orderLineList :orderLine)
OrderLineType(Quantity.Value = 3 ) from $orderLineList
then
$Order.getUBLRuleEnginePriority().setValue(high);
end/
Your rule would fire once for each OrderLine containing a quantity of
more than 2, which is quite another thing than an order with at least
3 order lines.
rule moreThanThree
when
$order : OrderType( orderLines.size() = 3, priority != high )
then
modify( $order ){ setPriority( high ) }
end
You can access orderLines.size() without the need for from. Testing
priority != high ensures that the rule does not loop if you use
modify to notify the Engine that something has changed (which you
probably should do).
Now how can i write the assumption? if i want a rule stating:
*If an ORDER contains at least 3 orderLine and Each OrderLine contains more
than 12 measures... the order must have the High Priority.*
Really thanks for your help.
Regards.
Alessio
rule moreThanThreeTwelve
when
$order: OrderType( orderLines.size() = 3, priority != high )
not OrderLineType( measures.size() 12 ) from $order.getOrderLines()
then
System.out.println( 3/12 );
modify( $order ){ setPriority( high ) }
end
Here from is required to extract the OrderLineType objects. The
not checks that they all have a List with at least 12 elements.
-W
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Write-Assumptions-for-NESTED-List-Object-tp4018241.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] Issues without response
@Edson: There is, of course, the fundamental problem of the pseudo-clock feature being full-bodiedly announced in Drools Fusion but SessionPseudoClock remaining absent from the stable API. While the Fusion manual emphasizes (correctly) that a pseudo-clock is useful in unit test it's important to note that there are good use cases for using it in certain production scenarios, both of which warrants that this feature should not be kept under-the-counter. -W On 26/06/2012, Edson Tirelli ed.tire...@gmail.com wrote: Cyril, Thank you for reporting and providing a well written test case. It really helps. We've all been involved with a number of other tasks, including the workshops from last week and JBW this week, that prevented me and others from working on tickets. Having said that, because the test case in JBRULES-3528 was well written, it allowed me to see the problem and identify a solution really quickly (literally between meetings). It is committed now to both 5.4.x branch and master branch. To other community members that don't know how to report bugs, take a look at Cyril's test case (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3528). It is a good example of how to help us help you. You can attach test cases to the tickets or send us a pull request in git hub. There are other community users that also usually provide good test cases (Wolfgang, just to mention one more), but if you don't know how to do it, I really recommend you look at that. Edson On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Cyril Sochor cyril.soc...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I created two issues in bugtracker, second one with pull request. JBRULES-3528 Deadlock when using pseudo session clock JBRULES-3529 JMS messenger for JBOSS AS 7.1 Issues are 20 days without any response. What's wrong? Thank you, Cyril Sochor ___ 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
Re: [rules-users] Write Assumptions for NESTED ListObject
Sorry, Laune, you've right, i bag your pardon as my first post was not so clear. Now i have re-edited it... maybe now the question is clearer. Can you read it again? I don't need to use .size() indeed... my real problem is to access the nested list properties.. In this case i can access the Quantity proterty of OrderLine... but i don't know how to access the measure proverty value in the nested OrderLineMeasure. Thanks a lot -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Write-Assumptions-for-NESTED-List-Object-tp4018241p4018249.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] JBPM ontology
Hi I THINK this interpretations can use : 1) Using a BP ontology as a meta-model of BPs, so that BPMN processes would be recognized as instances of the concepts defined in that ontology. You can then reason over the precesses themselves. 2012/6/22 Davide Sottara dso...@gmail.com Hi Olfa, sorry, I've been travelling in the last 3 weeks, I'll answer your emails shortly after. Now, for a general, public answer: integrating business processes and ontologies is a very broad question... Some possible interpretations include: 1) Using a BP ontology as a meta-model of BPs, so that BPMN processes would be recognized as instances of the concepts defined in that ontology. You can then reason over the precesses themselves. 2) Using a BP to orchestrate Semantic Web Services 3) Using the ontology as a data/domain model, shared between the tasks, to exchange information 4) Use a BP to express the transformations to be applied to a set of data defined in an ontology 5) Any combination of the above and more... you can google up a number of papers, reports, standards, works etc for any of them and possibly more JBPM people, feel free to pick up the lines ;) Best Davide -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-JBPM-ontology-tp4018187p4018194.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] Workitems doesn't get persisted when completing a task after rehydrating a knowledge session is some circumstances.
Hi Alberto, I'm not upset, kind the opposite. I'm sorry if my comments sounds harsh. I was making some assumptions based on my previous experience. My main point was, let's try to be concrete and let's work on code and failing tests. I know that is not trivial, but if we want to make the project better for everyone I think that's the only way to go. I'm keeping my mind open and I think that we all here are open to discussions, but lets discuss based on concrete proposals. If we don't go that way, this conversation will become cyclic and we will all loose time instead of being fixing bugs and adding new features :) On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Alberto R. Galdo arga...@gmail.com wrote: Mauricio, seems to me that you're upset. I'm really sorry, I didn't mean it. I didn't mean this thread to become a fud or some kind of rant. Comments inline: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Mauricio Salatino sala...@gmail.comwrote: What I've noticed in the past, doing consulting is that people wants to migrate from jBPM3 that is almost stateless to jBPM5 and have everything inside a Stateful session with a richer context and expect that everything will work in the same way. If you run each of your process instances in different stateful sessions (with local ht) you will have something similar to what jBPM3 does, extremely reduced and isolated context. Now if you want to add Rules and Events into the mix you will need to learn how Rules and Events works and how they are mixed with processes inside the stateful session. You cannot expect that all those features and the mix works in the same way as jBPM3 (just a stateless process engine) works, right? That's offensive :(. You're making uninformed assumptions about our experiences with JBPM Drools, both isolated and mixed, and our expectatives for the migration of our system from JBPM v3 to v5. We obviously were expecting some changes and some bugs. We were definetly not expecting such, IMHO, hard issues with the execution of long-running processes when persistence configured just because how the approach for mixing Drools JBPM solution for persistence was done. This makes the system not fault tolerant, at least not without some pain and I agree in certain ( but not rare ) configurations. I've also notice that this is a step-by-step learning process, once you master BPMN2 and how process works inside the process engine you can move to Rules and then to Events, learning in the middle the technical and logical requirements of each of them. Most of the time the solution is understanding how the components interact and can be mixed. I know that this is difficult sometime, because of the diversity of the technologies that are being mixed here. If you can create a test that shows the problems that you are mentioning here, we can discuss why or why not this is a good or a wrong approach and find bugs in case that you find one. If you are in a hurry and you think that what you are trying to solve are problems, good luck with finding the tricks. OK, let's call this a bug. We believe in open source, that's why we chose Drools JBPM in favor of other privative solutions. Hey!, At least here we have the chance to hack the code for dirty tricks! ;-). We also believe in an open and honest discussion of issues like this in this kind of projects. As you may know making a test case that reflects the situation mentioned in this thread takes time, is far from trivial, we really are in a hurry and deadlines are aproaching. I personally assigned resources in my team for making such tests and will create issues in Jira when available. Cheers Let me finish quoting with one of your previous messages: Keep your mind open, because there is no single solution for all the problems, which I agree. On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Alberto R. Galdo arga...@gmail.comwrote: We're in a hurry now to make our system work, unfortunately seems that we will be doing dirty tricks as this one for some time ... we'll open an issue whenever a test can be produced ... We were running our system using JBPM 3 and both the integration and the persistence there were seamsly done. Our system has high availability constraints that forces us to be fault tolerant ( that includes running the human task server and process manager in different machines ) and when migrating to JBPM 5 we began to face ugly race conditions and rare transactional problems ... we honestly thought that must be our fault, that's why we opened this thread, just to check if someone had this problems and make ourselves wrong or found another solution. On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Mauricio Salatino sala...@gmail.comwrote: So, can you create an isolated test where you reproduce: We are unable to complete a human task after rehydrating a Drools knowledge session because in some circunstances the generated Drools' workitems don't get
Re: [rules-users] Write Assumptions for NESTED ListObject
if i have well understood the DRL code the solution, in a form more compliant
with my needs, could be something like this:
when
$order: OrderType( $orderLineList: this.orderLine, priority != high )
$measureList: measure from $orderLineList
not ( this.measure 12 ) from $measureList
then
modify( $order ){ setPriority( high ) }
end
Is it right? i night to not use the get... methods... but directly to point
the variables (this.measure... this.orderLine ... i already tried this form
and it works).
Is it correct?
Really thanks for your help.
Alessio
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Write-Assumptions-for-NESTED-List-Object-tp4018241p4018254.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] Write Assumptions for NESTED ListObject
Kindly take my rule as it was written, except for the necessary
adjustments for the names of the getter methods.
-W
On 26/06/2012, aliosha79 alex_orl1...@yahoo.it wrote:
if i have well understood the DRL code the solution, in a form more
compliant
with my needs, could be something like this:
when
$order: OrderType( $orderLineList: this.orderLine, priority != high )
$measureList: measure from $orderLineList
not ( this.measure 12 ) from $measureList
then
modify( $order ){ setPriority( high ) }
end
Is it right? i night to not use the get... methods... but directly to point
the variables (this.measure... this.orderLine ... i already tried this form
and it works).
Is it correct?
Really thanks for your help.
Alessio
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Write-Assumptions-for-NESTED-List-Object-tp4018241p4018254.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] Write Assumptions for NESTED ListObject
Laune,
i need to know if this form is correct:
when
$order: OrderType( $orderLineList: this.orderLine, priority != high )
$measureList: measure from $orderLineList
not ( this.measure 12 ) from $measureList
then
modify( $order ){ setPriority( high ) }
end
The reason is that i'm implementing a rule editor for my work in a way that,
according to a selected xsd element from a displayed tree, i have to build
the right line of DRL code. So i m forced for many reason to use a form
similar to the one written above.
The pattern i'm using (and at this point i cannot change it anymore) is
something like this:
declaring $variableList
accessing the list using (this.property == value) FROM $variableList
it's a big costraint... i know... but i have to work this way.
So should the previous rule work?
Really thanks.
Alessio
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Write-Assumptions-for-NESTED-List-Object-tp4018241p4018256.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] Write Assumptions for NESTED ListObject
On 26/06/2012, aliosha79 alex_orl1...@yahoo.it wrote:
Laune,
i need to know if this form is correct:
when
$order: OrderType( $orderLineList: this.orderLine, priority != high )
(You could omit this.)
$measureList: measure from $orderLineList
This is incorrect DRL syntax. You have to extract (using from) the
elements of orderLine which are of class OrderLineType, and from these
you can extract measure.
not ( this.measure 12 ) from $measureList
This is ncorrect DRL syntax.
then
modify( $order ){ setPriority( high ) }
end
Using variables bound to the List fields:
when
$order: OrderType( $orderLineList: orderLines, priority != high )
$olt: OrderLineType( $measures: measures ) from $orderLineList
not Measure( measure 12 ) from $measures
then
The reason is that i'm implementing a rule editor for my work in a way
that,
according to a selected xsd element from a displayed tree, i have to build
the right line of DRL code. So i m forced for many reason to use a form
similar to the one written above.
The pattern i'm using (and at this point i cannot change it anymore) is
something like this:
declaring $variableList
accessing the list using (this.property == value) FROM $variableList
You'll *have* to add a class name up front, e.g.
SomeType(property == value) FROM $variableList
-W
it's a big costraint... i know... but i have to work this way.
So should the previous rule work?
Really thanks.
Alessio
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Write-Assumptions-for-NESTED-List-Object-tp4018241p4018256.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] RuleFlow not Found
Hi abhinay_agarwal ! Try this: FILE - NEW - OTHERS - DROOLS -Drools Project - Name of project... -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/RuleFlow-not-Found-tp4018251p4018258.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] Write Assumptions for NESTED ListObject
oh... ok i'll try this and i let you know. Really thanks for your help. Regards. Alessio -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Write-Assumptions-for-NESTED-List-Object-tp4018241p4018260.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] Issues without response
Wolfgang, Yes, I agree. We've been careful with that we expose on the knowledge-api, but this is clearly an interface that should be there. Will take care of it. Edson On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Wolfgang Laun wolfgang.l...@gmail.comwrote: @Edson: There is, of course, the fundamental problem of the pseudo-clock feature being full-bodiedly announced in Drools Fusion but SessionPseudoClock remaining absent from the stable API. While the Fusion manual emphasizes (correctly) that a pseudo-clock is useful in unit test it's important to note that there are good use cases for using it in certain production scenarios, both of which warrants that this feature should not be kept under-the-counter. -W On 26/06/2012, Edson Tirelli ed.tire...@gmail.com wrote: Cyril, Thank you for reporting and providing a well written test case. It really helps. We've all been involved with a number of other tasks, including the workshops from last week and JBW this week, that prevented me and others from working on tickets. Having said that, because the test case in JBRULES-3528 was well written, it allowed me to see the problem and identify a solution really quickly (literally between meetings). It is committed now to both 5.4.x branch and master branch. To other community members that don't know how to report bugs, take a look at Cyril's test case (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3528 ). It is a good example of how to help us help you. You can attach test cases to the tickets or send us a pull request in git hub. There are other community users that also usually provide good test cases (Wolfgang, just to mention one more), but if you don't know how to do it, I really recommend you look at that. Edson On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Cyril Sochor cyril.soc...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I created two issues in bugtracker, second one with pull request. JBRULES-3528 Deadlock when using pseudo session clock JBRULES-3529 JMS messenger for JBOSS AS 7.1 Issues are 20 days without any response. What's wrong? Thank you, Cyril Sochor ___ 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 -- 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
Re: [rules-users] Write Assumptions for NESTED ListObject
thanks for help... but it's not a nonsense... it has a great importance for me, as i have a lot of constraints to respect... the work consists of a collage of section of code for building a correct rule. So it's really different for me to use a form or a word instead of another. Thanks again. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Write-Assumptions-for-NESTED-List-Object-tp4018241p4018264.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] RuleFlow not Found
hi paco, bt this will create a new Drools Project.. I want to create a RULEFLOW for my drool project..which is already der !! -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/RuleFlow-not-Found-tp4018251p4018265.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] Write Assumptions for NESTED ListObject
On 26/06/2012, aliosha79 alex_orl1...@yahoo.it wrote: thanks for help... but it's not a nonsense... it has a great importance for me, as i have a lot of constraints to respect... You'll have to obey the DRL syntax rules, and you are bound to follow the givens of your data model. In both respects, your posts exhibit errors and misfeasance - sorry, but that's the way it is. -W the work consists of a collage of section of code for building a correct rule. So it's really different for me to use a form or a word instead of another. Thanks again. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Write-Assumptions-for-NESTED-List-Object-tp4018241p4018264.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] Write Assumptions for NESTED ListObject
ok don't worry... you was really helpful ... i know what to do ;) ... i'll let you know. Thanks again. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Write-Assumptions-for-NESTED-List-Object-tp4018241p4018267.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] RuleFlow not Found
yeah !! -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/RuleFlow-not-Found-tp4018251p4018269.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] RuleFlow not Found
up to drools 5.1 (more or less), the new default is jbpm flows, for rules or not. JBPM let you do what you can do with former .rf files. To be shorter : It is the same, at least seen from a ruleflow usage. Before you ask : you need to add jbpm jars to your drools runtime in order to make the flows work. Note that you can still use .rf format (editors works as well), but you still need to add jpbm jars. - Mail original - De: abhinay_agarwal abhinay_agar...@infosys.com À: rules-users@lists.jboss.org Envoyé: Mardi 26 Juin 2012 16:19:42 Objet: Re: [rules-users] RuleFlow not Found yeah !! -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/RuleFlow-not-Found-tp4018251p4018269.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] RuleFlow not Found
I am using Drools 5.4.0, when I create a simple HelloWorld project the file. rf is also created, from here I can know how I can create files. rf. This can help you to solve your problem. Paco -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/RuleFlow-not-Found-tp4018251p4018271.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] Trivial DecitionTable issue or bug?
I am running decision tables implemented in Excel and the values in the NAME column are being ignored in favor of the RuleTable (appended with an int). Am I missing something trivial or is this a bug in DROOLS 5.4? I have attached the screen capture (it is small) but scrunch the non-relevant parts to avoid any possible proprietary concerns (even though this is dummy data). Thanks! David http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n4018272/fornabble.gif -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Trivial-DecitionTable-issue-or-bug-tp4018272.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] Trivial DecitionTable issue or bug?
Can't see the entries below NAME, which doesn't help. Can't you post a suitably chastened spreadsheet? -W On 26 June 2012 17:53, drdaveg drda...@gmail.com wrote: I am running decision tables implemented in Excel and the values in the NAME column are being ignored in favor of the RuleTable (appended with an int). Am I missing something trivial or is this a bug in DROOLS 5.4? I have attached the screen capture (it is small) but scrunch the non-relevant parts to avoid any possible proprietary concerns (even though this is dummy data). Thanks! David http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n4018272/fornabble.gif -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Trivial-DecitionTable-issue-or-bug-tp4018272.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] Trivial DecitionTable issue or bug?
It is better if I type them here NAME no entry no entry Rulename DT Fare Itinerary Compute Discount 1 DT Fare Itinerary Compute Discount 2 DT Fare Itinerary Compute Discount 3 DT Fare Itinerary Compute Discount 4 DT-Fare-Itinerary-Compute-Discount5 I tried with and without quotes. The suffixed RuleTable name is being used and the last rule being matched (since it has no conditions) and its action is to print out something and my AgendaFilter prints out the rulename. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Trivial-DecitionTable-issue-or-bug-tp4018272p4018274.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] RuleFlow not Found
Yep, but this is because the sample is quite old now. If one day they decide to get rid with .rf files, it's better to start using jbpm format. Oh yeah, sample should be upgraded too ... - Mail original - De: paco fifi_nji...@yahoo.fr À: rules-users@lists.jboss.org Envoyé: Mardi 26 Juin 2012 17:24:06 Objet: Re: [rules-users] RuleFlow not Found I am using Drools 5.4.0, when I create a simple HelloWorld project the file. rf is also created, from here I can know how I can create files. rf. This can help you to solve your problem. Paco -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/RuleFlow-not-Found-tp4018251p4018271.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] Trivial DecitionTable issue or bug?
From the Expert manual (emphasis by me)l: *All Rule Tables begin with a cell containing RuleTable*, optionally followed by a string within the same cell. The string is used as the initial part of the name for all rules derived from this Rule Table, with the row number appended for distinction. (This automatic naming can be overridden by using a NAME column.) *All other cells defining rules of this Rule Table are below and to the right of this cell.* The NAME column in your sheet is below, but to the *left*. -W On 26 June 2012 18:15, drdaveg drda...@gmail.com wrote: It is better if I type them here NAME no entry no entry Rulename DT Fare Itinerary Compute Discount 1 DT Fare Itinerary Compute Discount 2 DT Fare Itinerary Compute Discount 3 DT Fare Itinerary Compute Discount 4 DT-Fare-Itinerary-Compute-Discount5 I tried with and without quotes. The suffixed RuleTable name is being used and the last rule being matched (since it has no conditions) and its action is to print out something and my AgendaFilter prints out the rulename. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Trivial-DecitionTable-issue-or-bug-tp4018272p4018274.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] how to avaide overwrinting results in drools planner
I have 2 boxes, lets say each size of 5x5 and I have 3 items two size 4x4 and one item size is 3x3. planner initially planner assigning as follows... I - When I use 3 items 2 boxes(this produce wrong planning) item1 (4x4) -- box1 (5x5) item2 (4x4) -- box2 (5x5) item3 (4x4) -- box1 (5x5) II - When I use 2 item, result as follows...(this is correct planning) item1 (4x4) -- box1 (5x5) item2 (4x4) -- box2 (5x5) III - When I increase one more box(this is correct too) item1 (4x4) -- box1 item2 (4x4) -- box2 item3 (4x4) -- box3 you can see the test I - it is over writing the first assignment and assign the new item there in the box 1, I unable to figure it out how to solve this problem, I suspect this can be done in the score calculation rules, the problem is I do not know how to implement to avoid the overwriting assignments. thanks, - with kind regards, -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/how-to-avaide-overwrinting-results-in-drools-planner-tp4018277.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
