Re: [rules-users] Moving comment in DSLR file causes issue under 5.3
I'm not sure what exactly causes your errors - is it exactly what you have posted, or anything different from what you have written, with that line moved elsewhere or anywhere? What does the resulting DRL look like? A semicolon at the end of the statement is indicated unless it's commented out. -W On 24/07/2012, drdaveg drda...@gmail.com wrote: This is an odd one. I was testing some DSL and have been tracing back an error in the translation. The line marked in the code below, even as a comment, causes multiple cannot be resolved errors when moved. Any thoughts on what could cause this other than a bug? Note that almsot all of the code is commented and as it appears now generates the errors. If I move the line to the LHS the cannot be resolved errors go away. The only interesting thing shown in the DRL viewer is that some of the comments appear duplicated. rule Compute when # Fare(fareBasisCode == fp1) # ts1 : TrainSegment(fl1 : fareList) # ts2 : TrainSegment(fl2 : fareList) # mySol : Solution() Fare(fp1 : fareBasisCode, thruFare == true) x : FQ3() # eval(fl1.get(fp1 )!=null) # eval(fl2.get(fp1)!=null) # eval(mySol .nthSegment(ts1)==(mySol .nthSegment(ts2)+1)) then # //int n = fq.nthSegment(fp1) ** moving this line can cause a syntax error # FQ3 test = new FQ3(); test = fq; System.out.println(fp1); x.setPassengerString(T); // x.getPassengerString()+ end -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Moving-comment-in-DSLR-file-causes-issue-under-5-3-tp4018882.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] How to make available declarative model to all packages.
Hi manstis, I allready have made the 2 steps you mentioned above. This is not the problem. The problem is the following step 3: Going to the Edit tab in the package x.y.z and adding the types from the imported declarative model in the list named Configuration: Imported types, because if I click on the green + there is no type from the declarative model to choose. And my rule in the package x.y.z needs the missing type. So the package cannot be build. I hope I have expressed my problem now clear enough. Thanks in advance. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/How-to-make-available-declarative-model-to-all-packages-tp3605644p4018889.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] Continuous Planning values for task planning
Op 24-07-12 23:14, Josef Bajada schreef: Hi Geoffrey, Thanks for your reply. Does it make sense to wait longer than 7 mins after task A (presuming no other task forces occupies the user at that time)? Put differently: Can we say that the starting time of B = Math.max((endTime of task before B), (endTime of task A + 7 minutes))? If we can say that, it's pointless to investigate the solutions where task B starts 8 minutes after task A and the user doing no task that last minute. Yes, the starting time of B = Math.max((endTime of task before B), (endTime of task A + 7mins)) as long as it is smaller than (endTime of task A + 8mins). Yes, it is pointless to investigate the solutions where task B starts 8 minutes after task A and the user doing no task that last minute. The 8 minute is just a constraint that the task in between tasks A and B cannot take longer than 7:59s. I am thinking that maybe instead of using time itself as the planning variable, we would use time just to determine the Hard and Soft scores. So if Task B is scheduled after Task A + 8mins by the solver, then it inflicts on the hard score. Similarly if Task B is scheduled before Task A + 7 mins. Does my reasoning make sense in any way? Yes, but personally, I 'd design it differently (although I have no proof that my way would be better), like this: Task B is scheduled after Task A + 8mins by the solver = make this a hard constraint Task B is scheduled before Task A + 7 mins = make this a build-in hard constraint (= not a constraint in the scoreDRL or ScoreCalculator, but by design, see manual). Each Task is assigned to a previousTaskOrPerson (and this variable is chained). It does not know it's startingTime directly. The scoreDRL or ScoreCalculator calculates the startingTime of a Task dynamically, by applying this logic: starting time of B = Math.max((endTime of previousTaskOrPerson of B), (endTime of task A + 7mins)) Note: Chained=true guarantees that there are no cycles of Tasks and that no Tasks exists with a previousTaskOrPerson == null. Note: (endTime of task A + 7mins) is not hard coded in the score function: you won't find 7 or A in there. thanks, Josef On 24 July 2012 20:46, Geoffrey De Smet ge0ffrey.s...@gmail.com mailto:ge0ffrey.s...@gmail.com wrote: Op 23-07-12 16 tel:23-07-12%2016:26, Josef Bajada schreef: Hi Geoffrey, Well I want to leave 'space' between tasks in the situations where there are hard constraints that require me to put this space. This makes the chaining technique harder to model, but I wouldn't write it off yet. As a simple example: Task A: Put pasta in boiling water (duration 40 seconds) Task B: Take pasta out of boiling water (duration 50 seconds, cannot start before 7 mins after Task A finishes, cannot start after 8 mins after Task A finishes) Does it make sense to wait longer than 7 mins after task A (presuming no other task forces occupies the user at that time)? Put differently: Can we say that the starting time of B = Math.max((endTime of task before B), (endTime of task A + 7 minutes))? If we can say that, it's pointless to investigate the solutions where task B starts 8 minutes after task A and the user doing no task that last minute. If we can say that, then chaining can calculate the the starting time of a task on the fly differently. Task C: Chop vegetables (duration 2 minutes). This will evidently leave some gaps. The ideal result from the solver should be: Task A: at time 0 (ends at 40s) Task C: at time 41s (ends at 2:41) Task B: at time 7:40 There is a gap between C and B which is OK. If another Task is added to the story: Task D: Prepare sauce (duration 7 minutes) I would want the following result: Task A: at time 0 (ends at 40s) Task D: at time 41s (ends 7:41s) Task B: at time 8:42s (ends 9:32s) Task C: at time 9:33s (ends 11:33s) Task C can actually take place before Task A too. I still need to read and understand the chaining functionality properly. Do you think it would allow me to achieve the above? I don't know. But using continuous variables in a search problem such as this that smells discrete with discrete constraints (A must start before B, ...), could blow up the search space unnecessarily. If you want to look into using continuous variables: the support for it is limited currently. you can reuse the Drools Planner metaheuristic algorithms (including termination, score, ...), but there's no decent generic move factory support for continuous variables yet. So you 'll have to write a custom MoveFactory that creates a limited subset of moves. Also, construction heuristics can't handle continuous variables yet, so you 'll have to write a custom SolutionIntializer. There are examples with a custom MoveFactory and a custom
Re: [rules-users] How to make available declarative model to all packages.
OK, great I understand :) What version of Guvnor are you using? On 25 July 2012 07:18, rodolphio m.rindflei...@gameartstudio.de wrote: Hi manstis, I allready have made the 2 steps you mentioned above. This is not the problem. The problem is the following step 3: Going to the Edit tab in the package x.y.z and adding the types from the imported declarative model in the list named Configuration: Imported types, because if I click on the green + there is no type from the declarative model to choose. And my rule in the package x.y.z needs the missing type. So the package cannot be build. I hope I have expressed my problem now clear enough. Thanks in advance. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/How-to-make-available-declarative-model-to-all-packages-tp3605644p4018889.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] How to make available declarative model to all packages.
I'm using Guvnor 5.4 -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/How-to-make-available-declarative-model-to-all-packages-tp3605644p4018892.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] Slow compilation (4h) for a single rule
Thanks for your explanation Edson, it makes sense now I think! Basically what you are saying is that there is a limit, beyond which is no longer feasible to use more ORs on a rule. Edson Tirelli-4 wrote You are trying to avoid the issue. As reported by others, your conditions should be inside the patterns, not in or'd evals in the end, and yes, it is possible to generate rules like that in an automated program. Sadly I don't see how, as some of my rules have arbitrary arithmetic involving more than one variable inside the Number(), for more context see the example I've put on http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/drools-arithmetics-without-eval-td3823232.html. For this case I think I will try to invert the logic and get rid of the ORs: not(A or B) = not(A) and not(B). Best regards, TL -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Slow-compilation-4h-for-a-single-rule-tp4018855p4018894.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] Guvnor search for rules based on fact attributes
Hi folks, I have been asked by my current client to evaluate search functionality which could in essence search for rules which are affected by a particular fact value. For example, if we have a number of rules similar to the following format: when $req : TradeRequest(account = 10, buyCurrency = 'EUR', buyAmount 500) then TradeValidationResponse response = new TradeValidationResponse(); response.setPermitted(false); response.setMessage(Account 10 is not permitted to trade more than 500 EUR); insert(response); end What the client is interested in is being able to search for all rules which have been defined for account 10. I was thinking to mess around with a rather quick and dirty solution to grab the package source via the REST interface and pattern match rules in a very hard-coded way for this specific use-case. However, that does look like a rather fragile way of achieving this. So I was wondering whether anybody had looked at this sort of idea previously and might have thoughts on a 'better' or more generic solution, which wouldn't be massively complicated. I was thinking that it might be nice to extend the search mechanism in Guvnor so that I could pick a fact from the model and do a search for all rules which are based on the value of an attribute. However, every time I think about how that could be achieved, it seems I come up with new ways in which it would become really difficult to pull off. Any thoughts? Cheers, Steve ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] java.lang.NullPointerException at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooFactHandleFactory.newFactHandle(ReteooFactHandleFactory.java:56)
Hi everyone! we have made other tow tests: 1 - As suggested by Vincent, we have just used the source gets from Guvnor and all work fine. In addition, it would seem that putting observations and events in the same package all work fine!!! 2 - We have tried to put the observation in the same packet of event in the model and the new drl becomes: from *package* org.dfms.model; to *package* org.dfms.model.situation; from* import* org.dfms.model.observation.ACObservation; to *import* org.dfms.model.situation.ACObservation; * * *import* org.dfms.model.situation.AccessControlEvent; *import* org.dfms.model.situation.SituationManager; *import* org.dfms.model.situation.Event; *import* org.dfms.model.mapfeature.AccessControlPoint; *import* com.vividsolutions.jts.geom.Point; *import* com.vividsolutions.jts.geom.Geometry; *import* java.util.HashSet; *import* java.util.ArrayList; *declare* ACObservation @role(event) *end* *declare* AccessControlEvent @role(event) *end* *rule* AccessControl *no-loop* *when* $obs : ACObservation( $sensorid : sensorId, $location : location ) over window:length(1) *from* entry-point access_control *then* *insert*( SituationManager.createAccessControlEvent( $obs, Access Control Detection, Event.THREAT_NO, $location, $sensorid )); *end* then we have loaded the pkg from Guvnor (by this link http://localhost:8080/guvnor/org.drools.guvnor.Guvnor/package/org.dfms.model/LATEST ) into our application and all work fine!!! Thank you and best regards. Carolina 2012/7/24 Vincent LEGENDRE vincent.legen...@eurodecision.com Our application is using this url: http://localhost:8080/guvnor/org.drools.guvnor.Guvnor/package/org.dfms.model/LATEST to loading from Guvnor5.3.0 the pkg. Is it correct? Yes, to get the compiled package, compiled inside Guvnor, but this is the problem here. The compiled package is a serialized kPackage object. When you get this from guvnor, and put it inside your kBase, the object is simply deserialized. The ObjectTypeConf conf.getTypeDeclaration() will look in the kBase, and for guvnor compiled package this method returns null (don't know why). I think you may have a difference between your Guvnor version and the drools runtime version. You can either use the source got from guvnor ( http://localhost:8080/guvnor/rest/packages/org.dfms.model/source) to build your kBase, and this should work fine. ___ 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] Slow compilation (4h) for a single rule
A last effort from my side. Given any number of bound variables a, b, c: to determine whether an arbitrary boolean expression involving arithmetic and comparison operators, a single eval() is sufficient and preferable to a CE combination involving the CE operators and, or, not combining many evals. Instead of not( eval( a == 1 ) ) use eval( ! (a == 1) ) // or better eval( a != 0 ) Instead of eval( a == 1 ) or eval( b == 1 ) use eval( a == 1 || b == 1 ) Instead of eval( a == 1 ) and eval( b == 1 ) use eval( a == 1 b == 1 ) -W On 25/07/2012, fx242 dro...@fx242.com wrote: Thanks for your explanation Edson, it makes sense now I think! Basically what you are saying is that there is a limit, beyond which is no longer feasible to use more ORs on a rule. Edson Tirelli-4 wrote You are trying to avoid the issue. As reported by others, your conditions should be inside the patterns, not in or'd evals in the end, and yes, it is possible to generate rules like that in an automated program. Sadly I don't see how, as some of my rules have arbitrary arithmetic involving more than one variable inside the Number(), for more context see the example I've put on http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/drools-arithmetics-without-eval-td3823232.html. For this case I think I will try to invert the logic and get rid of the ORs: not(A or B) = not(A) and not(B). Best regards, TL -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Slow-compilation-4h-for-a-single-rule-tp4018855p4018894.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] Moving comment in DSLR file causes issue under 5.3
Thanks. I think this is actualy a bug in 5.3. I wonder if there is an issue with the mvel getting unsynchronized as files get larger? The # should indicate a comment and should indicate something passed thru to DROOLS directly. So almost the entire rule is commented out. I am particuarly puzzled why moving the offending statement to the left hand side removes the 2 errors - fp1 cannot be resolved to a variable and x cannot be resolved to a variable. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Moving-comment-in-DSLR-file-causes-issue-under-5-3-tp4018882p4018898.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] Slow compilation (4h) for a single rule
Listen to what others are saying in this thread... it is very good advice, specially what wolfgang suggests bellow regarding collapsing evals. Also, I just read the example in your link where you have multiple accumulates in a single rule... that is *bad* For those that attended or saw my presentation on best practices, an easy way to estimate the performance of accumulates is to remember that the performance of accumulates in a single rule is polinomial: O(n^a), where n is the number of matching facts and a is the number of accumulates you have in the same rule. So, if you have 1 rule with 5 accumulates, the performance will be n^5. If instead you break the accumulates into 5 rules with one accumulate each, you get a performance of O(5n) that is much better. Edson On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Wolfgang Laun wolfgang.l...@gmail.comwrote: A last effort from my side. Given any number of bound variables a, b, c: to determine whether an arbitrary boolean expression involving arithmetic and comparison operators, a single eval() is sufficient and preferable to a CE combination involving the CE operators and, or, not combining many evals. Instead of not( eval( a == 1 ) ) use eval( ! (a == 1) ) // or better eval( a != 0 ) Instead of eval( a == 1 ) or eval( b == 1 ) use eval( a == 1 || b == 1 ) Instead of eval( a == 1 ) and eval( b == 1 ) use eval( a == 1 b == 1 ) -W On 25/07/2012, fx242 dro...@fx242.com wrote: Thanks for your explanation Edson, it makes sense now I think! Basically what you are saying is that there is a limit, beyond which is no longer feasible to use more ORs on a rule. Edson Tirelli-4 wrote You are trying to avoid the issue. As reported by others, your conditions should be inside the patterns, not in or'd evals in the end, and yes, it is possible to generate rules like that in an automated program. Sadly I don't see how, as some of my rules have arbitrary arithmetic involving more than one variable inside the Number(), for more context see the example I've put on http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/drools-arithmetics-without-eval-td3823232.html . For this case I think I will try to invert the logic and get rid of the ORs: not(A or B) = not(A) and not(B). Best regards, TL -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Slow-compilation-4h-for-a-single-rule-tp4018855p4018894.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 -- 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] Slow compilation (4h) for a single rule
Thank you all for your feedback, I will try to implement at least the part of collapsing the multiple evals() into a single one. Edson Tirelli-4 wrote Also, I just read the example in your link where you have multiple accumulates in a single rule... that is *bad* The accumulate() over-usage is a known problem for me, but so far the best solution for my case was proposed by Vincent Legendre on this http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/drools-arithmetics-without-eval-tp3823232p3825280.html post . As a comic note, the previous rule with the 26 ORs, had 26 accumulates on it :) Best regards, TL -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Slow-compilation-4h-for-a-single-rule-tp4018855p4018900.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] Guvnor search for rules based on fact attributes
drools-verifier (the scaffolding thereof at least) could be used in principle. drools-verifier builds an AST of a rule's definition that is then evaluated by some bundled validation\verification rules. In principle you could use the AST and your own rules to perform a search. Guvnor uses JCR and Lucene to perform the search based on the rules' content (sometimes DRL sometimes XML, depending on how the rule is expressed internally). You could, in principle, extend this however you're not really getting anything better than regex on the DRL with the associated issues you have already identified. Lots of in principles but worth a look... :) With kind regards, Mike On 25 July 2012 11:02, Stephen Masters stephen.mast...@me.com wrote: Hi folks, I have been asked by my current client to evaluate search functionality which could in essence search for rules which are affected by a particular fact value. For example, if we have a number of rules similar to the following format: when $req : TradeRequest(account = 10, buyCurrency = 'EUR', buyAmount 500) then TradeValidationResponse response = new TradeValidationResponse(); response.setPermitted(false); response.setMessage(Account 10 is not permitted to trade more than 500 EUR); insert(response); end What the client is interested in is being able to search for all rules which have been defined for account 10. I was thinking to mess around with a rather quick and dirty solution to grab the package source via the REST interface and pattern match rules in a very hard-coded way for this specific use-case. However, that does look like a rather fragile way of achieving this. So I was wondering whether anybody had looked at this sort of idea previously and might have thoughts on a 'better' or more generic solution, which wouldn't be massively complicated. I was thinking that it might be nice to extend the search mechanism in Guvnor so that I could pick a fact from the model and do a search for all rules which are based on the value of an attribute. However, every time I think about how that could be achieved, it seems I come up with new ways in which it would become really difficult to pull off. Any thoughts? Cheers, Steve ___ 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] Remove rule but timer still fires
I just noticed a very similar observation in this JIRA entry: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3078 When I ran that test case with 5.4.0.Final it worked as it should (the timer didn't continue to fire). The difference is that the this test case is calling: kbase.removeRule( pkgName, ruleName ); where I'm calling: org.drools.rule.Package pkg; pkg.removeRule( rule ); Changing my code to call kbase.removeRule() got rid of the timer!! Awesome! - Ladd -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Remove-rule-but-timer-still-fires-tp4018509p4018902.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] Compiled rules differ KnowledgeAgent vs ResourceChangeScanner
I posted a JIRA for this bug: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3584 https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3584 I attached a zip file of a Netbeans project that reproduces the bug and also demonstrates some workarounds. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Compiled-rules-differ-KnowledgeAgent-vs-ResourceChangeScanner-tp4018608p4018903.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] Compiled rules differ KnowledgeAgent vs ResourceChangeScanner
I had time to download 5.4.0 Final this morning and using the current release, my unit tests pass. Sorry to waste people's time with a bug on an old release. Maybe this thread will be useful to others who have older release levels. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Compiled-rules-differ-KnowledgeAgent-vs-ResourceChangeScanner-tp4018608p4018904.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] Drools Planner JIT selectors
I learned from the following link, this sounds very good for performance, this is available from 5.5 only, when can we expect the Drools Planner 5.5. Do you have any idea about the release date? http://planet.jboss.org/post/scaling_planner_with_jit_selectors_in_memory_consumption_and_performance thanks, - with kind regards, -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Planner-JIT-selectors-tp4018906.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] Diff between Drools opensource and Redhat BRMS
I couldn't find a FAQ, so please don't hate on me if this is one of those questions :-) Quick question: What do you get with Redhat BRMS that you don't get from the opensource version of Drools and Guvnor? Is the only difference support? thanks, Bill Bohrer BRMS architect/analyst Texas Education Agency -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Diff-between-Drools-opensource-and-Redhat-BRMS-tp4018907.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] Diff between Drools opensource and Redhat BRMS
It's a little out of date now (2011), as jBPM5 is now supported in BRMS5.3. But the essence of the article is the same. http://blog.athico.com/2011/04/drools-jbpm-community-versus-product.html Mark On 25/07/2012 22:35, wbohrer wrote: I couldn't find a FAQ, so please don't hate on me if this is one of those questions :-) Quick question: What do you get with Redhat BRMS that you don't get from the opensource version of Drools and Guvnor? Is the only difference support? thanks, Bill Bohrer BRMS architect/analyst Texas Education Agency -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Diff-between-Drools-opensource-and-Redhat-BRMS-tp4018907.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
