Thanks a lot everybody for their awnsers, this clarifies it to some extend :)!
What I was talking about was indeed the difference between an: interpreted rete
engine vs. code generated rete engine vs. the use of no inference engine at all
(e.g. Visual Rules). One of the questions that pop up: Is it possible to
maintain the same 'statefull' features with a code generated inference engine?
Like you said Take generates a backward chaining algorith, but would it be able
to react to a changed fact like drools can with the modify statement? Is
code-generated Rete maybe comparable with the drools sequential mode?
It could be that I'm mixing alot of things up, I can't find a whole lot on this
subject.
So do you have any insight on the differences between a interpreted rete engine
an a code generated one. Would they differ in functionality in any way?
Thanks!
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org namens Edson Tirelli
Verzonden: ma 8-3-2010 17:55
Aan: Rules Users List
Onderwerp: Re: [rules-users] Inferencing
Hi Tim,
That is a nice topic for studies, but be prepared for a tsunami of
information and quite a few controversies. :)
Regarding your question, I am not sure I completely understand what you
mean, but it is important to be clear that "generation of code" is an
orthogonal concern to the chosen algorithm. I.e., take the Rete algorithm for
example: you can have it fully "interpreted" (I am using the term loosely
here), you can generate code for it completely, or you can be anywhere in the
middle. In all cases, the properties of the algorithm itself will be preserved
(assuming the implementations are correct). Incurring the risk of making a
mistake here, I will mention that AFAIK Jess falls in the first cathegory, OPSJ
falls in the second and Drools falls in the 3rd, and they are all Rete based
algorithms.
Its been a long time since I last looked at TAKE, but at that time it was
generating code for a backward-chaining-like algorithm. Not sure what it has
now.
So, my suggestion is that you either focus on the properties of the
algorithms itself (for instance, are you comparing classic Rete with known
algorithm like LEAPS, TREAT, etc) or focus on the advantages and disadvantages
of code generation (for instance "interpreted Rete" versus "code generated
Rete", again using terms loosely here). Mixing everything in a single
comparison might be misleading.
Edson
2010/3/8 Tim de Jager <tim.deja...@student.hu.nl>
Hi everybody,
I'm currently doing my bachelor thesis on Rule engines. This includes
comapring different Rule engine products. I have set up a small Java
program
(Conway's game of life) and I'm writing the 'engine' in different Rule
engines, while keeping the same GUI,CellGrid etc. I have already made a
Drools based engine.
I have been studying the Rule engine subject for somewhat more then a
month
now. And I'm currently seeing two different developments namely the use
of
an inference engine and the generation of embedded code instead (Take,
Visual Rules etc.) I can see some of the pro's and cons with both
paradigms. But I'm wondering what opinion some of you guys have on the
subject.
I can see that without inferencing it is very hard (or even
impossible) to
keep a statefull session inside the rule engine, haven't seen a
non-inferencing rule engine which does offer this possibility. And also
lose
features like TMS. But what would be a concrete example where a
statefull
session is absolutely necessary? Instead of letting the engine reason
over
all the facts in stateless way. And managing conflicts with a ruleflow
(see
Visual Rules for a nice example).
I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Thanks,
Tim
P.S I already read two of Mark Proctors blogs on inferencing, but while
enlightening, they didn't supply me with a definitive awnser
--
View this message in context:
http://n3.nabble.com/Inferencing-tp435411p435411.html
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
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
