[rules-users] Call functions from other functions?
Hello rules-users, Is it possible to call from functions other (same, if recursive) functions in jbossrules 3.0.6? in 4.0.0? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Ru ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] question about DSL, nested values
Hi Matt.
yeah mapping deep hierarchies in a way that anyone can understand is not
that easy. You can have helper methods on your objects to give you
functionality. eg if you don't care which address you are talking about,
then you could do something like:
Person ( , (hasAddress(blah)) )
assuming there is a hasAddress method on Person - which then iterates
through for you. Or you have a function to do it for you.
You can do things like
There is a Person
- has an address of 'blah'
where -has an address of '{blah}'==(checkAddress(this, {blah}) )
that will use a function checkAddress, and apply it to the fact (which is
the Person). So you can span lines that way rather then coming up with
combinations.
On 6/26/07, Matt Geis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm encountering some conceptual issues trying to get something done with
JBossRules.
What I'd like to do is to create a DSL that allows our non-technical users
to have some very flexible options for accessing nested properties in an
object.
Ideally I'd like to allow them to
1. Access certain cryptically named properties by easy-to-understand
aliases.
2. Use boolean operators such as and/or
3. Use comparators such as ==, , , etc.
4. Use the above in nested clauses (see below).
For example, take a Person, which has the following properties...
String name
Date birthdate
Address[] addresses
Phone[] phones
Address has the following properties:
String street, city, state, zip;
Phone has...
String areaCode, exchange, line:
Most frequently, the rules will operate to find out if a given object
in a nested collection meets certain property criteria, and if so, to
identify the first object that does and call out that fact in the THEN
clause of the rule.
Here's a sample use case. If the user has one or more phones with an area
code of 415, print San Francisco.
Pseudo-code...
rule
when
There is a person with a phone with area code equals '415'
then
Output San Francisco
end
So, there is a person clearly equates to something like p:Person()...
but where I'm getting stuck is the rest of it. I dont' want to come up
with ALL possible permutations of the object's properties, so having
something like p:Person(phone[0].areaCode == '415') is not an option. Not
only does it fail to address ALL the phones, it's hard-coded.
I couldn't find any documentation on using the 'contains' operator for
anything other than Collections of Strings ($shop.cheeses contains
'stilton'). I could imagine something like...
in DRL: p:Person(phones contains phone.areaCode == '415') (yes, very
pseudocode, I know)
Other thoughts I've had, but I have no experience with them, are whether
MVEL projections or accumulator functions would be of use. I could see ways
where I could find out if a nested item met certain criteria (project all
area codes for phones into a collection, then see if that collection
'contains' the desired value, or use an accumulator function to examine all
objects and capture the index of the first one that matches). Although that
might work (as I said, not sure here), I'm still not seeing how to do this
and still keep the end user flexibility I'm hoping for.
I'd like to have a list of names, like 'area code' maps to 'areaCode' and
'street address' maps to 'street', and the user could plug them in on their
own, so they could just as easily also write (with no changes to the DSL)...
There is a person with an address with state equals 'MA'
I've thought about somehow using an eval() call, but I can't capture the
entire criteria string and pass it to a function in a global helper (the DSL
doesn't expand it, and just sends the String literal {criteria}
Even if that did work, I don't like the idea of circumventing the
declarative nature of the rules language.
I'd LOVE to be able to express this all in one rule, as it's business
users who will be working with the DSL. If it were programmers, I'd
probably be ok with asking them to assert the Phone[], and have some other
rule act on that, but I don't think that will work for me.
On a side note, is there documentation or examples anywhere for getting
nested properties and using MVEL?
Any help and suggestions greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Matt
Ready
for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.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] Design by Contract and Business Ruless
Hi, I'm working in a project and I have the intention to express static properties about the domain using Design by Contract and the Dynamic part using Rules (JBoss Rules). I want to know, what do you think about this? Thanks Javier -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Design-by-Contract-and-Business-Ruless-tf3997252.html#a11352366 Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] question about DSL, nested values
Another option is to use 'from'. I didn't tested that, but it should work
fine in trunk.
There is a Person
Whose address areaCode equals '415'
Would be mapped to:
when
p: Person()
a: Address( areaCode == '415' ) from p.addresses
then
...
end
Note that the kind of flexibility you are trying to achieve is not
simple by nature do to in a template engine (like DSL).
Good luck and let us know plz how it goes.
Regards,
Edson
2007/6/29, Michael Neale [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Matt.
yeah mapping deep hierarchies in a way that anyone can understand is not
that easy. You can have helper methods on your objects to give you
functionality. eg if you don't care which address you are talking about,
then you could do something like:
Person ( , (hasAddress(blah)) )
assuming there is a hasAddress method on Person - which then iterates
through for you. Or you have a function to do it for you.
You can do things like
There is a Person
- has an address of 'blah'
where -has an address of '{blah}'==(checkAddress(this, {blah}) )
that will use a function checkAddress, and apply it to the fact (which is
the Person). So you can span lines that way rather then coming up with
combinations.
On 6/26/07, Matt Geis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm encountering some conceptual issues trying to get something done
with JBossRules.
What I'd like to do is to create a DSL that allows our non-technical
users to have some very flexible options for accessing nested properties in
an object.
Ideally I'd like to allow them to
1. Access certain cryptically named properties by easy-to-understand
aliases.
2. Use boolean operators such as and/or
3. Use comparators such as ==, , , etc.
4. Use the above in nested clauses (see below).
For example, take a Person, which has the following properties...
String name
Date birthdate
Address[] addresses
Phone[] phones
Address has the following properties:
String street, city, state, zip;
Phone has...
String areaCode, exchange, line:
Most frequently, the rules will operate to find out if a given object
in a nested collection meets certain property criteria, and if so, to
identify the first object that does and call out that fact in the THEN
clause of the rule.
Here's a sample use case. If the user has one or more phones with an
area code of 415, print San Francisco.
Pseudo-code...
rule
when
There is a person with a phone with area code equals '415'
then
Output San Francisco
end
So, there is a person clearly equates to something like p:Person()...
but where I'm getting stuck is the rest of it. I dont' want to come up
with ALL possible permutations of the object's properties, so having
something like p:Person(phone[0].areaCode == '415') is not an
option. Not only does it fail to address ALL the phones, it's hard-coded.
I couldn't find any documentation on using the 'contains' operator for
anything other than Collections of Strings ($shop.cheeses contains
'stilton'). I could imagine something like...
in DRL: p:Person(phones contains phone.areaCode == '415') (yes, very
pseudocode, I know)
Other thoughts I've had, but I have no experience with them, are whether
MVEL projections or accumulator functions would be of use. I could see ways
where I could find out if a nested item met certain criteria (project all
area codes for phones into a collection, then see if that collection
'contains' the desired value, or use an accumulator function to examine all
objects and capture the index of the first one that matches). Although that
might work (as I said, not sure here), I'm still not seeing how to do this
and still keep the end user flexibility I'm hoping for.
I'd like to have a list of names, like 'area code' maps to 'areaCode'
and 'street address' maps to 'street', and the user could plug them in on
their own, so they could just as easily also write (with no changes to the
DSL)...
There is a person with an address with state equals 'MA'
I've thought about somehow using an eval() call, but I can't capture the
entire criteria string and pass it to a function in a global helper (the DSL
doesn't expand it, and just sends the String literal {criteria}
Even if that did work, I don't like the idea of circumventing the
declarative nature of the rules language.
I'd LOVE to be able to express this all in one rule, as it's business
users who will be working with the DSL. If it were programmers, I'd
probably be ok with asking them to assert the Phone[], and have some other
rule act on that, but I don't think that will work for me.
On a side note, is there documentation or examples anywhere for getting
nested properties and using MVEL?
Any help and suggestions greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Matt
Ready
for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
[rules-users] Compilation Issue in Rules
I am getting the following error when I try to run the DSL and DRL file in DROOLS 3.0.6. I checked the DSL and DRL file. The files doesn't have any errors in it. ERROR: Unexpected token . in primary Can anyone help me on this issue? Thanks, McShiv. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Compilation-Issue-in-Rules-tf4001757.html#a11366482 Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Dynamic JavaBeans
Mark,
I'v been trying to get the way to patch that, but I must confess
that is way too complex for me now.. My best
guess is that when the update(retract/insert) is done, it just take
the factHandle modified to rebuild the ReteRuleBase
so when the activations are setted in place this doesnt care about
another fact update to fill the AgendaGroupImpl.
I dont really know the best way to modify the code... I bow before
u guys...
Also tried your suggestion using something like : modify ( cheese )
{ price = 25, quality = premium }
But I get compilation erros saying that modify(myFact) is not
defined... so I dont really know how to use
this MVEL functionality... got ur what is new in drools 4.0, search
at examples and mailing-list, but cant get the right way
to make that work.
If you could help me with any working example, or maybe a work-
around... I sont wanna use a set of rules that must be writen in a
sequence mode using salience I need to write a lot of rules in an
independent way.
Sorry for my english, and thank you very much.
On 28-06-2007, at 16:43, Mark Proctor wrote:
feel free to work on a patch for us and let us know what you come
up with.
Mark
Felipe Piccolini wrote:
Mark,
What about my previous mail where I report an issue with update
using dynamic JavaBeans (using propertyListeners)?
The problem is that when the engine is fired again from an
propertyListener the evaluations on conditions (seems to me)
dont take the new state of the Facts changed in the setAttribute
call.
I will try using MVEL modify, but thats not the better solution,
because the feature of propertyListerners inside javaBeans let
me write my rules in a cleaner way from BRMS/bussines editor.
Thanks.
On 28-06-2007, at 8:28, Mark Proctor wrote:
If it can be done cleanly I'm not averse to it. however there is
something else...
In the new MVEL dialect you no longer need
propertychangelisteners if you don't want to call update()
modify ( cheese ) { price = 25, quality = premium }
This will modify all the setters and notify the engine at the end
of the block setter. Is that good enough for you?
Mark
Yuri de Wit wrote:
Mark,
btw, If this is a feature that makes sense from Drools pov I
wouldnt
mind giving a shot at implementing it and contributing it back to
Drools.
-- yuri
On 6/28/07, Yuri de Wit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure. The solution I am taking right now is dont use dynamic
properties, which is not optimal (depending on the problem
property
changes not being batched defeats the purpose of dynamic beans).
The bottom line is that I was hoping that this feature would (1)
either already be taken care of in 4.0 or (2) become a feature
request
for future releases.
-- yuri
On 6/28/07, Mark Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No we don't do anything to batch property change listener
results. But
maybe you can do this yourself.
instead of calling modify, add it to a transaction list (that
you make
available in the current context). Then at the end of the
consequence
you can iterate that list and call modify on each object. Or
alternatively don't use dynamic properties.
Mark
Yuri de Wit wrote:
I am not talking about assert, but modify. I have a dynamic
fact
already asserted but now I need to perform N changes on N
different
properties on the same object on the same consequence.
Drools is going
to traverse the RETE network N times once for each time the
PropertiesListener is called (each setProperty called).
-- yuri
On 6/28/07, Mark Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would doing the assert work at the end of the
consequence be any
quicker than doing it during the consequence?
Mark
Yuri de Wit wrote:
I noticed that changes performed on facts asserted
dynamically causes
the fact to be modified right away and therefore
triggering a RETE
network traversal and rule schedulings.
For apps with a large number of facts this could be a
significant
scalability problem. At least in my case, I would like
to be able to
use dynamic facts and perform any number of updates and
have those
updates commited to working memory only when the rule
consequence is
completed.
Looking at the code, it seems that it would not be a
major effort to
collect the facts received by the
ReteooWorkingMemory.propertyChange
and perform the actual modifyObject() only when the
consequence
evaluation is actually completed.
Does that makes sense? Or are there side effects I am
not seeing? Is
this a problem that 4.0 already resolves?
thanks in advance,
-- yuri
___
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
[rules-users] Unexpected token . in primary - Rule Compilation Error
com.package.FatalSystemException at org.drools.rule.Package.checkValidity(Unknown Source) at org.drools.reteoo.RuleBaseImpl.addPackage(Unknown Source) at com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.DroolsExecutor.executeRules(DroolsExecutor.java) at com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.callRulesExecutor(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:82) at com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.rulesExecutionprocess(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:65) at com.sentry.underwriting.ruleprocessor.RulesProcessor.processRules(RulesProcessor.java) at com.sentry.underwriting.test.UnderwritingDemo.main(UnderwritingDemo.java:21) Caused by: org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage: Rule Compilation error File com/policy/Rule_SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12_0.java, Line 12, Column 176: Unexpected token . in primary ... 7 more I am using Drools 3.0.6 version. I got the above message when the drl files are added to the RuleBase class. I debugged the code. The error was thrown when ruleBase.addPackage(packageBuilder.getPackage()); line was called in the DroolsExecutor class. Can anyone please suggest me any sollution for this problem. Thanks in addvance. Thanks, McShiv. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected-token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compilation-Error-tf4002948.html#a11369488 Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Unexpected token . in primary - Rule Compilation Error
howdy, is your package name right? please paste your rule code. Fernando Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 5A6D 3374 B055 A513 9A02 A03B 3DB3 7485 D804 DDFB On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:16 PM, McShiv wrote: com.package.FatalSystemException at org.drools.rule.Package.checkValidity(Unknown Source) at org.drools.reteoo.RuleBaseImpl.addPackage(Unknown Source) at com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.DroolsExecutor.executeRules (DroolsExecutor.java) at com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.callRules Executor(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:82) at com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.rulesExec utionprocess(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:65) at com.sentry.underwriting.ruleprocessor.RulesProcessor.processRules (RulesProcessor.java) at com.sentry.underwriting.test.UnderwritingDemo.main (UnderwritingDemo.java:21) Caused by: org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage: Rule Compilation error File com/policy/Rule_SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12_0.java, Line 12, Column 176: Unexpected token . in primary ... 7 more I am using Drools 3.0.6 version. I got the above message when the drl files are added to the RuleBase class. I debugged the code. The error was thrown when ruleBase.addPackage(packageBuilder.getPackage()); line was called in the DroolsExecutor class. Can anyone please suggest me any sollution for this problem. Thanks in addvance. Thanks, McShiv. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected- token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compilation-Error- tf4002948.html#a11369488 Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Unexpected token . in primary - Rule Compilation Error
DRL Syntax
package com.policy;
expander SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan.dsl;
#list any import classes here.
import com.viking.common.transferbeans.CommonInformation;
import com.sentry.common.entitybeans.EntityBean;
import com.sentry.common.entitybeans.Selected;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
#declare any global variables here
rule SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan11
salience 100
when
The EntityBean Contains Selected List
then
Assert All The Selected
end
rule SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12
salience 50
when
The Question Code Is License And The Selected Value is Y
then
Remove The Product 09 And Plan CD
end
DSL Syntax:
[when] The EntityBean Contains Selected List = entity : EntityBean();
eval(entity.getSelected() != null);
[then] Assert All The Selected = Object[] quoSelList = entity.getSelected();
for(int i = 0; i quoSelList.length; i++){ Selected queSel =
(Selected)quoSelList[i]; assert(queSel); System.out.println(queSel); }
[when] The Question Code Is {speCode1} And The Selected Value is
{speValue1} = common : CommonInformation(); Selected(stateSpecificCode ==
{speCode1}, stateSpecificValue == {speValue1});
[then] Remove The Product {prodCode1} And Plan {planCode1} =
if(common.getProd() == {prodCode1} || common.getPlan() ==
{planCode1}){System.out.println(Error);}
The Selected Class is an Object Array inside EntityBean Class.
CommonInformation is a seperate class. CommonInformation EntityBean will
be available in Working Memory(asserted earlier in java class).
I need to remove the Selected Classes in the Object array and assert into
the working memory. Thats what I am doing in the First Rule.
In the Second rule I check for some condition and print the error according
to the condition.
Thanks,
McShiv
Fernando Meyer Camargo wrote:
howdy,
is your package name right? please paste your rule code.
Fernando Meyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG: 5A6D 3374 B055 A513 9A02 A03B 3DB3 7485 D804 DDFB
On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:16 PM, McShiv wrote:
com.package.FatalSystemException
at org.drools.rule.Package.checkValidity(Unknown Source)
at org.drools.reteoo.RuleBaseImpl.addPackage(Unknown Source)
at
com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.DroolsExecutor.executeRules
(DroolsExecutor.java)
at
com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.callRules
Executor(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:82)
at
com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.rulesExec
utionprocess(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:65)
at
com.sentry.underwriting.ruleprocessor.RulesProcessor.processRules
(RulesProcessor.java)
at
com.sentry.underwriting.test.UnderwritingDemo.main
(UnderwritingDemo.java:21)
Caused by: org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage: Rule Compilation
error File
com/policy/Rule_SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12_0.java, Line 12, Column 176:
Unexpected token . in primary
... 7 more
I am using Drools 3.0.6 version.
I got the above message when the drl files are added to the
RuleBase class.
I debugged the code. The error was thrown when
ruleBase.addPackage(packageBuilder.getPackage()); line was called
in the
DroolsExecutor class.
Can anyone please suggest me any sollution for this problem.
Thanks in addvance.
Thanks,
McShiv.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected-
token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compilation-Error-
tf4002948.html#a11369488
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected-token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compilation-Error-tf4002948.html#a11369670
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Unexpected token . in primary - Rule Compilation Error
hmm.. there is a problem with the action of the 2nd rule, so, converting it
to vanilla DRL:
rule SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12
salience 50
when
...
then
if(common.getProd() == {prodCode1} || common.getPlan() ==
{planCode1}){System.out.println(Error);}
end
That doesn't look quite right - you are doing == on strings - .equals would
be better). I would try that rule on its own, without a DSL - to see what is
causing it. Also - why are you doing the if on the RHS? I would get rid of
that if at all possible to save confusion later.
On 6/30/07, McShiv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DRL Syntax
package com.policy;
expander SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan.dsl;
#list any import classes here.
import com.viking.common.transferbeans.CommonInformation;
import com.sentry.common.entitybeans.EntityBean;
import com.sentry.common.entitybeans.Selected;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
#declare any global variables here
rule SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan11
salience 100
when
The EntityBean Contains Selected List
then
Assert All The Selected
end
rule SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12
salience 50
when
The Question Code Is License And The Selected Value is Y
then
Remove The Product 09 And Plan CD
end
DSL Syntax:
[when] The EntityBean Contains Selected List = entity : EntityBean();
eval(entity.getSelected() != null);
[then] Assert All The Selected = Object[] quoSelList = entity.getSelected
();
for(int i = 0; i quoSelList.length; i++){ Selected queSel =
(Selected)quoSelList[i]; assert(queSel); System.out.println(queSel); }
[when] The Question Code Is {speCode1} And The Selected Value is
{speValue1} = common : CommonInformation(); Selected(stateSpecificCode
==
{speCode1}, stateSpecificValue == {speValue1});
[then] Remove The Product {prodCode1} And Plan {planCode1} =
if(common.getProd() == {prodCode1} || common.getPlan() ==
{planCode1}){System.out.println(Error);}
The Selected Class is an Object Array inside EntityBean Class.
CommonInformation is a seperate class. CommonInformation EntityBean will
be available in Working Memory(asserted earlier in java class).
I need to remove the Selected Classes in the Object array and assert into
the working memory. Thats what I am doing in the First Rule.
In the Second rule I check for some condition and print the error
according
to the condition.
Thanks,
McShiv
Fernando Meyer Camargo wrote:
howdy,
is your package name right? please paste your rule code.
Fernando Meyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG: 5A6D 3374 B055 A513 9A02 A03B 3DB3 7485 D804 DDFB
On Jun 29, 2007, at 10:16 PM, McShiv wrote:
com.package.FatalSystemException
at org.drools.rule.Package.checkValidity(Unknown Source)
at org.drools.reteoo.RuleBaseImpl.addPackage(Unknown Source)
at
com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.DroolsExecutor.executeRules
(DroolsExecutor.java)
at
com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.callRules
Executor(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:82)
at
com.sentry.underwriting.ruleexecutor.RulesExecutionProcessor.rulesExec
utionprocess(RulesExecutionProcessor.java:65)
at
com.sentry.underwriting.ruleprocessor.RulesProcessor.processRules
(RulesProcessor.java)
at
com.sentry.underwriting.test.UnderwritingDemo.main
(UnderwritingDemo.java:21)
Caused by: org.drools.rule.InvalidRulePackage: Rule Compilation
error File
com/policy/Rule_SpeCodeSpeValProdPlan12_0.java, Line 12, Column 176:
Unexpected token . in primary
... 7 more
I am using Drools 3.0.6 version.
I got the above message when the drl files are added to the
RuleBase class.
I debugged the code. The error was thrown when
ruleBase.addPackage(packageBuilder.getPackage()); line was called
in the
DroolsExecutor class.
Can anyone please suggest me any sollution for this problem.
Thanks in addvance.
Thanks,
McShiv.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected-
token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compilation-Error-
tf4002948.html#a11369488
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Unexpected-token-%22.%22-in-primary---Rule-Compilation-Error-tf4002948.html#a11369670
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
