[rules-users] New Guvnor and Drools 6.0 Workbench video
I made this last night, it's just a quick thing, but gives an idea of the flexibility we have in the new Workbench. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckAznbOOV-4 Mark ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Backward Chaining Tutorial
made this video, hope it helps in understanding backward chaining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjIRVSRFvA Mark ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Shadow fax
Hello, First of all i have to appologise for this horrible joke, but i think you understand that i'm interrested in shadow facts. I read that theses lazy facts proxy were introduced in Drools 4 in order to make the rule engine/working memory consistent. I have some questions about the general implentation of shadow facts in drools 5.4 : - Did the shadow facts been implemented since version 4, or was it earlyier? - Are the shadow facts still implemented in drools 5.4 final? - How the mapping between the fact fields and the proxy fields is implemented ? By this i want to know all fields are copy when the fact is insert into the session. - Is there the possibility to disable shadow facts ? You have to know that we get the knowledgeBase through a knowledgeAgent which Thank you. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Shadow-fax-tp4023948.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] Shadow fax
On 24/05/2013, ronan.quintin ronan.quin...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, First of all i have to appologise for this horrible joke, but i think you understand that i'm interrested in shadow facts. OK, but you better be careful - I was inclined to can this mail due to its subject and the preview of the first line... I read that theses lazy facts proxy were introduced in Drools 4 in order to make the rule engine/working memory consistent. I have some questions about the general implentation of shadow facts in drools 5.4 : - Did the shadow facts been implemented since version 4, or was it earlyier? - Are the shadow facts still implemented in drools 5.4 final? - How the mapping between the fact fields and the proxy fields is implemented ? By this i want to know all fields are copy when the fact is insert into the session. - Is there the possibility to disable shadow facts ? There is no such p(a)roxysm in Drools 5. Objects are inserted into Working Memory to become facts, and that's all there is to it. Period. -W You have to know that we get the knowledgeBase through a knowledgeAgent which Thank you. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Shadow-fax-tp4023948.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] Shadow fax
On 24 May 2013, at 08:51, ronan.quintin ronan.quin...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, First of all i have to appologise for this horrible joke, but i think you understand that i'm interrested in shadow facts. I read that theses lazy facts proxy were introduced in Drools 4 in order to make the rule engine/working memory consistent. I have some questions about the general implentation of shadow facts in drools 5.4 : They did exist in 4, we had a similar engine to Jess then. http://blog.athico.com/2008/02/shadow-facts-what-you-always-wanted-to.html They are no longer needed in 5, due to changes in our rete algorithm. See Assymetrical Rete algorithm: http://blog.athico.com/2008/07/drools-50-m1-new-and-noteworthy.html http://blog.athico.com/2008/10/symmetrical-and-asymmetrical-rete.html http://blog.athico.com/2010/01/rete-and-true-modify.html - Did the shadow facts been implemented since version 4, or was it earlyier? - Are the shadow facts still implemented in drools 5.4 final? - How the mapping between the fact fields and the proxy fields is implemented ? By this i want to know all fields are copy when the fact is insert into the session. - Is there the possibility to disable shadow facts ? Don't need to, they are gone. You have to know that we get the knowledgeBase through a knowledgeAgent which Thank you. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Shadow-fax-tp4023948.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] Shadow fax
Ok i understand that the need to have proxies no longer exits due to new asymetric rete algorithm. I but i'm a little bit desapointed. It seem that when a fact is introduced into the working memory, all it's fields are evaluate. I guess i have to explain what is my problem. I have business objects which are directly used into the working memory. Theses BO are not entirely POJO, some of them perform SQL queries. We used interfaces to produced a POJO jar, which have been sent to knowledge base. Previously we used drools in version 3, but now we use version 5.4 and we notice a significant performance reduction. It seems that all fields of the BO are readed even if they aren't used. Our rules are decision table in spreadsheet format. Each row's start with a condition on a fields which doesn't make a SQL query, so normaly there isn't a lot of peformed SQL queries. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Shadow-fax-tp4023948p4023951.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] Shadow fax
On 24 May 2013, at 09:50, ronan.quintin ronan.quin...@gmail.com wrote: Ok i understand that the need to have proxies no longer exits due to new asymetric rete algorithm. I but i'm a little bit desapointed. It seem that when a fact is introduced into the working memory, all it's fields are evaluate. That is not true. Only the fields used are the ones evaluated. There is no pre-processing, they are only touched, when the constraint itself is evaluated. I guess i have to explain what is my problem. I have business objects which are directly used into the working memory. Theses BO are not entirely POJO, some of them perform SQL queries. We used interfaces to produced a POJO jar, which have been sent to knowledge base. Previously we used drools in version 3, but now we use version 5.4 and we notice a significant performance reduction. It seems that all fields of the BO are readed even if they aren't used. This would not be a problem on the Drools side, something else must be forcing all field sot be read - if you are not writing constraints to read them. Our rules are decision table in spreadsheet format. Each row's start with a condition on a fields which doesn't make a SQL query, so normaly there isn't a lot of peformed SQL queries. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Shadow-fax-tp4023948p4023951.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] Shadow fax
Ok, thank you for this explaination. I know that the salience can build a priority between rules into a single excel file. But it there a priority criteria between column? For exemple from left column to right. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Shadow-fax-tp4023948p4023953.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 5.5 deployment error on WAS8
Hi, I am trying to deploy drools guvnor 5.5 on was8.0 through admin console. It fails with NullPointerException. Could you please suggest me the changes required in tomcat version of guvnor war to deploy it in WAS 8 environment. Do I need to rebuild the war file with different configurations for WAS env? Please guide me to proceed on this. Thanks in advance Best regards Ramesh -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Guvnor-5-5-deployment-error-on-WAS8-tp4023954.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] Benefits of pluggable operators
What are the benefits of using pluggable operators (implementations of org.drools.base.evaluators.EvaluatorDefinition such str, matches, or before) versus simply making an equivalent function call? I've read the Creating pluggable operatorshttp://blog.athico.com/2010/06/creating-pluggable-oprators.html blog post. Apart from saying that the Eclipse plugin can recognize these operators, it doesn't really make a case for why I'd want to create my own implementation. One might argue that operators enhance reusability, but a static method offers much the same benefit. Does a pluggable operator have any optimization, caching, or other advantage? For example, here are two ways to match the start of a string in a property of a fact, one using the str[startsWith] operator and another with Java's String.startsWith method: declare Fact key : String @key end rule Use operator when Fact(key str[startsWith] abc) then // do something end rule Use method when Fact(key.startsWith(abc)) then // do something end Does one of these perform better than the other? Best wishes, Tom ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Benefits of pluggable operators
Thomas, Pluggable operators were developed much before we supported free form expressions, but nowadays they can be used for the same purpose. It is then a matter of preference basically. You can still develop and use pluggable operators if that makes your rule more readable by hiding complexity related to parameter passing or something that would be required in a method call, but I can't think of any advantage or disadvantage in either approach in terms of performance or cost. If I remember correctly, pluggable operators were developed for Drools 4.0, while free form expressions were only fully functional in 5.3+ (limited functionality in 5.2). Edson On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Thomas Grayson tgray...@bluemetal.comwrote: What are the benefits of using pluggable operators (implementations of org.drools.base.evaluators.EvaluatorDefinition such str, matches, or before) versus simply making an equivalent function call? I’ve read the Creating pluggable operatorshttp://blog.athico.com/2010/06/creating-pluggable-oprators.htmlblog post. Apart from saying that the Eclipse plugin can recognize these operators, it doesn’t really make a case for why I’d want to create my own implementation. One might argue that operators enhance reusability, but a static method offers much the same benefit. Does a pluggable operator have any optimization, caching, or other advantage? ** ** For example, here are two ways to match the start of a string in a property of a fact, one using the “str[startsWith]” operator and another with Java’s String.startsWith method: ** ** *declare* Fact key : String @key *end* ** ** *rule* Use operator *when* Fact(key str[startsWith] abc) *then* // do something *end* ** ** *rule* Use method *when* Fact(key.startsWith(abc)) *then* // do something *end* ** ** Does one of these perform better than the other? ** ** Best wishes, Tom ** ** ___ 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] Shadow fax
On 24 May 2013, at 15:35, ronan.quintin ronan.quin...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, thank you for this explaination. I know that the salience can build a priority between rules into a single excel file. But it there a priority criteria between column? For exemple from left column to right. no -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Shadow-fax-tp4023948p4023953.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] [Optaplanner] No-arg constructor for BendableScoreDefinition
I have switched to 6.0.0.beta2 and I am still receiving a similar error. While BendableScoreDefinition does now have a no-arg constructor, It seems that XStream is still upset that the constructor is not public. ... Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: The scoreDefinitionClass (class org.optaplanner.core.impl.score.buildin.bendable.BendableScoreDefinition) does not have a public no-arg constructor at org.optaplanner.persistence.xstream.XStreamScoreConverter.init(XStreamScoreConverter.java:43) ... 17 more Caused by: java.lang.IllegalAccessException: Class org.optaplanner.persistence.xstream.XStreamScoreConverter can not access a member of class org.optaplanner.core.impl.score.buildin.bendable.BendableScoreDefinition with modifiers private at sun.reflect.Reflection.ensureMemberAccess(Reflection.java:95) at java.lang.Class.newInstance0(Class.java:366) at java.lang.Class.newInstance(Class.java:325) at org.optaplanner.persistence.xstream.XStreamScoreConverter.init(XStreamScoreConverter.java:38) ... 17 more -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Optaplanner-No-arg-constructor-for-BendableScoreDefinition-tp4023523p4023961.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] Benefits of pluggable operators
I'm inclined to think that a well-implemented operator can provide a little bit more cushioning for the rule author. In the given example, key.startsWith(abc) would throw an NPE if key is null. The operator silently handle this case and simply return false. Another thing is that operators can be used with the single left hand side expression pattern, i.e., field opa x || opb y || opc y Syntactic sugar, certainly, but occasionally quite convenient. -W On 24/05/2013, Edson Tirelli ed.tire...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas, Pluggable operators were developed much before we supported free form expressions, but nowadays they can be used for the same purpose. It is then a matter of preference basically. You can still develop and use pluggable operators if that makes your rule more readable by hiding complexity related to parameter passing or something that would be required in a method call, but I can't think of any advantage or disadvantage in either approach in terms of performance or cost. If I remember correctly, pluggable operators were developed for Drools 4.0, while free form expressions were only fully functional in 5.3+ (limited functionality in 5.2). Edson On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Thomas Grayson tgray...@bluemetal.comwrote: What are the benefits of using pluggable operators (implementations of org.drools.base.evaluators.EvaluatorDefinition such str, matches, or before) versus simply making an equivalent function call? I’ve read the Creating pluggable operatorshttp://blog.athico.com/2010/06/creating-pluggable-oprators.htmlblog post. Apart from saying that the Eclipse plugin can recognize these operators, it doesn’t really make a case for why I’d want to create my own implementation. One might argue that operators enhance reusability, but a static method offers much the same benefit. Does a pluggable operator have any optimization, caching, or other advantage? ** ** For example, here are two ways to match the start of a string in a property of a fact, one using the “str[startsWith]” operator and another with Java’s String.startsWith method: ** ** *declare* Fact key : String @key *end* ** ** *rule* Use operator *when* Fact(key str[startsWith] abc) *then* // do something *end* ** ** *rule* Use method *when* Fact(key.startsWith(abc)) *then* // do something *end* ** ** Does one of these perform better than the other? ** ** Best wishes, Tom ** ** ___ 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
