Mark,
Just curious if one were to develop such a thing are there any guidelines on
the conversion process already documetned some where?
Ron
On 3/28/06, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Simply a lack of time. If no user contributes the conversion utility I
> will get round to it eventually.
>
> Mark
> Ronald R. DiFrango wrote:
> > 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
