Mark,
Thanks for the update. It is a real bummer that there is not support for
the 2.x form in 3.0. Any reason why no backwards compatitbility?
BTW...that Drools NoPrize for a coversion utility sounds outstanding :-)
Ron
On 3/28/06, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Currently there is not. Apart from functions, it should be easy enough.
> Drools 2.x is a subset of drools 3.0. Each 2.x condition maps to a 3.0
> eval - hence why Drools 2.x is not as efficient as 3.0, when rules are
> written properly. Drools 3.0 will now only match againts JavaBeans -
> that means String, Integer etc cannot be asserted as facts; which we
> have always claimed is bad practice anyway.
>
> <rule name="Hello World">
> <parameter identifier="person">
> <class>Person</class>
> </parameter>
>
> <java:condition>person.getName().equals("Stilton")</java:condition>
>
> <java:consequence>
> System.out.println( "Hello Stilton, did you konw you are named
> after a smelly piece of cheese?" );
> </java:consequence>
> </rule>
>
> So we bind the parameter and put conditions into evals:
> rule "hello world"
> when
> person : Person // This line is equivalent to the parameter
> section
> eval( person.getName().equals("Stilton") )
> then
> System.out.println( "Hello Stilton, did you konw you are named after
> a smelly piece of cheese?" )
> end
>
> However I must stress that the above is a very bad way to write rules in
> 3.0. Instead whenver possible you should use Field Constraints:
> rule "hello world"
> when
> Person( name == "Stilton" )
> then
> System.out.println( "Hello Stilton, did you konw you are named after
> a smelly piece of cheese?" )
> end
>
>
> In Drools 3.0 it is possible to bind both Facts and the Fact's fields:
> person : Person( personName : name )
>
> Please look over the intergration tests to see how Drools 3.0 is used
>
> http://anonsvn.labs.jboss.com/trunk/labs/jbossrules/drools-compiler/src/test/java/org/drools/integrationtests/IntegrationCases.java
>
> http://anonsvn.labs.jboss.com/trunk/labs/jbossrules/drools-compiler/src/test/resources/org/drools/integrationtests/
>
>
> Functions will need some sort of parser/processor. In Drools 2.x it was
> one big block for all functions. In 3.0 we need to pull out each
> individual function, along with their parameters.
>
> There is a Drools NoPrize to the person how creates the first complete,
> including functions, translator for 2.x to 3.0 :)
>
> Mark
>
> Ronald R. DiFrango wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > I may have missed it in previous posts, but is there a translation
> mechanism
> > from 2.1/2.5 style rules to the new style?
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > On 3/28/06, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Info and downloads from here:
> >> http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JBossRules
> >>
> >> Much improved over beta 1, thanks for all the folks testing it, and for
> >> the
> >> feedback.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
