Oh yes, by the way, I also have not yet had my coffee... -----Original Message----- From: Mark Proctor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [drools-user] input validation in rules used by JSR-94 clients
Egads I've created a monster - honestly it was just my sick sense of humour, nothing else. I just read the logging as a fact paragraph and replied to that, didn't read the bit about backward chaining. Mark Adrian Bigland wrote: > Sorry guys, > > I think I'm giving the wrong impression here - I really have a serious > question and don't intend to upset anyone. I'll reply to the > appropriate message in a moment, and hopefully you will see where I am coming from. > > > > > "Hamu, Dave" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[email protected]> > .com> cc: > Subject: RE: [drools-user] input validation in rules used by JSR-94 clients > 10/11/2005 15:39 > Please respond > to user > > > > > > > I have researched it. I have done it. I advertised no claims in > terms of performance, however, if done sensibly there is no problem > accomplishing what Adrian was inquiring about with Drools with good > performance, however, it is clear to me that Adrian's issue has > nothing to do with rules engines and Drools. It has to do with his > private war... Dave has left the room (insofar as this discussion is > concerned). > > Best Regards, > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Proctor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [drools-user] input validation in rules used by JSR-94 > clients > > I haven't really researched this but while each can do vice versa, > neither is as fast as if it was native - with backward chaining > emulating forwarding chaining being slower than the other way around. > > Mark > Hamu, Dave wrote: > >> I think that you can easily do forward chaining and backward chaining >> with Drools. For that matter, you can achieve forward chaining with >> a >> > > >> backward chaining engine and vice-versa... >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adrian Bigland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:17 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [drools-user] input validation in rules used by JSR-94 >> clients >> >> It just occurred to me that validation may be more of a >> backward-chaining concept. You have a goal, i.e. a valid input set >> for >> > > >> the rules, and want to prove that the current set is actually valid. >> >> Is it right that a pure forward chaining rule engine will have >> difficulty handling the absence of things? >> >> I've been using JRules in the recent past, which has rules that match >> working memory itself if it contains a certain number of instances of >> a class - or if there are none. This sort of thing made validation >> rules easier to write. It also had initial and final actions which >> provided some mode support for free. However, I got the feeling that >> the implementation was becoming complicated and less 'pure' whatever >> that means. >> >> Maybe the answer is to write rules that match working memory, then - >> and perhaps supply a working memory implementation that can count >> instances for you. >> >> >> >> >> >> ********************************************************************* >> * This e-mail and any attachment is intended for the named >> addressee(s) only, or person authorised to receive it on their >> behalf. The content should be treated as confidential and the >> recipient may not disclose this message or any attachment to anyone >> else without authorisation. >> Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure may be unlawful. If this >> transmission is received in error please notify the sender >> immediately >> > > >> and delete this message from your e-mail system. Any view expressed >> by >> > > >> the sender of this message or any attachment may be personal and may >> not represent the view held by First Choice Holidays PLC and its >> subsidiaries. All electronic transmissions to and from First Choice >> are recorded, may be monitored and are scanned for viruses and >> > content. > >> E-mails containing viruses will be deleted without notification. >> Whilst we maintain virus checks on inbound e-mails we accept no >> liability for viruses or other material introduced with this message. >> >> All companies form part of the First Choice Holidays PLC group of >> companies. >> >> First Choice Holidays PLC Company Registration No: 48967 (England) >> >> Registered Office: First Choice House, London Road, Crawley, >> WestSussex RH10 9GX >> ********************************************************************* >> * >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
