Re: [rules-users] Diff between Drools opensource and Redhat BRMS

2012-07-25 Thread Mark Proctor 
It's a little out of date now (2011), as jBPM5 is now supported in 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

[rules-users] Diff between Drools opensource and Redhat BRMS

2012-07-25 Thread wbohrer 
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] Drools Planner JIT selectors

2012-07-25 Thread Ricardo 
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

Re: [rules-users] Compiled rules differ KnowledgeAgent vs ResourceChangeScanner

2012-07-25 Thread lhorton 
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

Re: [rules-users] Compiled rules differ KnowledgeAgent vs ResourceChangeScanner

2012-07-25 Thread lhorton 
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] Remove rule but timer still fires

2012-07-25 Thread Ladd 
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] Guvnor search for rules based on fact attributes

2012-07-25 Thread Michael Anstis 
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  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] Slow compilation (4h) for a single rule

2012-07-25 Thread fx242 
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] Slow compilation (4h) for a single rule

2012-07-25 Thread Edson Tirelli 
   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 wrote:

> 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  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] Moving comment in DSLR file causes issue under 5.3

2012-07-25 Thread drdaveg 
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

2012-07-25 Thread Wolfgang Laun 
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  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] java.lang.NullPointerException at org.drools.reteoo.ReteooFactHandleFactory.newFactHandle(ReteooFactHandleFactory.java:56)

2012-07-25 Thread Carolina Pellecchia 
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 

> > 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

[rules-users] Guvnor search for rules based on fact attributes

2012-07-25 Thread Stephen Masters 
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] Slow compilation (4h) for a single rule

2012-07-25 Thread fx242 
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

Re: [rules-users] How to make available declarative model to all packages.

2012-07-25 Thread rodolphio 
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