Re: [rules-users] Shadow facts
J Michael Dean wrote:
I think I was not clear in my note. I used dynamic facts with Drools
4.07 but am migrating to Drools 5, where there is no longer a second
argument to the insert method. My POJOs do have property change
listeners.
We have deprecated the insert method in favour of an attribute of a type
declaration for propertychangesupport, this will be in the CR.
Mark
Here is an example rule that activates but never apparently fires:
rule "Detect insulin on"
dialect "java"
when
decision : GlucoseDecision(currentInsulinDripRate > 0)
decisionState : GlucoseDecisionState( insulinOn == false )
then
decisionState.setInsulinOn(true);
end
The relevant method that is called on the RHS:
public void setInsulinOn(boolean insulinOn) {
boolean oldValue = this.isInsulinOn();
this.insulinOn = insulinOn;
firePropertyChange("insulinOn", oldValue, insulinOn);
}
The eventual call is to fireRules which then calls executeRules in a
callback. Previously, I had a Boolean argument to the insert
statements and all the code worked with the old RuleBase, RuleAgent
objects. But since changing to KnowledgeSession, the rules
do not appear to fire. Here are the relevant methods:
public void executeRules(WorkingEnvironmentCallback callback) {
StatefulKnowledgeSession ksession = kbase.newStatefulKnowledgeSession();
callback.initEnvironment(ksession);
ksession.fireAllRules();
ksession.dispose();
}
public void fireRules(final GlucoseDecision glucoseDecision, final
GlucoseDecisionState decisionState) {
rulesEngine.executeRules(new WorkingEnvironmentCallback() {
public void initEnvironment(StatefulKnowledgeSession workingMemory) {
workingMemory.insert(glucoseDecision);
workingMemory.insert(decisionState);
}
});
}
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:26:06 -0500
From: Edson Tirelli mailto:tire...@post.com>>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow facts
To: Rules Users List >
Message-ID:
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dean,
There are two unrelated things in here... the boolean flag for dynamic
facts means your fact supports the property change listeners and you
don't
need to call modify() when you change an attribute. ShadowFacts are a
complete different thing that should be mostly transparent to users.
If you can provide an example, it will be easier to help you.
[]s
Edson
2009/2/11 J Michael Dean >
I am migrating from 4.07 to 5 and my previous DRL file does not function
correctly; I previousliy inserted facts with the dynamic Boolean
set true.
I understand that this is no longer done because shadow facts are "not
needed" in Drools 5, but is it necessary to do anything different in
the RHS
when modifying facts? My fact POJOs have a method for adding text to
themselves. I believe my rules are not working properly because
nothing is
being modified - only the initial activation set fires and then nothing
happens.
Restated, the documentation talks about how to "avoid" shadow facts in
Drools 4.07 - are the restrictions in this part of the docs necessary in
Drools 5?
Thanks.
___
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 mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Shadow facts
I think I was not clear in my note. I used dynamic facts with Drools
4.07 but am migrating to Drools 5, where there is no longer a second
argument to the insert method. My POJOs do have property change
listeners.
Here is an example rule that activates but never apparently fires:
rule "Detect insulin on"
dialect "java"
when
decision : GlucoseDecision(currentInsulinDripRate > 0)
decisionState : GlucoseDecisionState( insulinOn == false )
then
decisionState.setInsulinOn(true);
end
The relevant method that is called on the RHS:
public void setInsulinOn(boolean insulinOn) {
boolean oldValue = this.isInsulinOn();
this.insulinOn = insulinOn;
firePropertyChange("insulinOn", oldValue, insulinOn);
}
The eventual call is to fireRules which then calls executeRules in a
callback. Previously, I had a Boolean argument to the insert
statements and all the code worked with the old RuleBase, RuleAgent
objects. But since changing to KnowledgeSession, the rules
do not appear to fire. Here are the relevant methods:
public void executeRules(WorkingEnvironmentCallback callback) {
StatefulKnowledgeSession ksession =
kbase.newStatefulKnowledgeSession();
callback.initEnvironment(ksession);
ksession.fireAllRules();
ksession.dispose();
}
public void fireRules(final GlucoseDecision glucoseDecision, final
GlucoseDecisionState decisionState) {
rulesEngine.executeRules(new WorkingEnvironmentCallback() {
public void initEnvironment(StatefulKnowledgeSession
workingMemory) {
workingMemory.insert(glucoseDecision);
workingMemory.insert(decisionState);
}
});
}
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:26:06 -0500
From: Edson Tirelli
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow facts
To: Rules Users List
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dean,
There are two unrelated things in here... the boolean flag for
dynamic
facts means your fact supports the property change listeners and you
don't
need to call modify() when you change an attribute. ShadowFacts are a
complete different thing that should be mostly transparent to users.
If you can provide an example, it will be easier to help you.
[]s
Edson
2009/2/11 J Michael Dean
I am migrating from 4.07 to 5 and my previous DRL file does not
function
correctly; I previousliy inserted facts with the dynamic Boolean
set true.
I understand that this is no longer done because shadow facts are
"not
needed" in Drools 5, but is it necessary to do anything different
in the RHS
when modifying facts? My fact POJOs have a method for adding text to
themselves. I believe my rules are not working properly because
nothing is
being modified - only the initial activation set fires and then
nothing
happens.
Restated, the documentation talks about how to "avoid" shadow facts
in
Drools 4.07 - are the restrictions in this part of the docs
necessary in
Drools 5?
Thanks.
___
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] StatefulKnowledgeSession and J2EE
Is there any recommended "Best Practice" for instantiating and accessing a StatelfulKnowledgeSession in a J2EE environment? One use case for this type of session is it will act as a Complex Event Processor - taking in low-level events from all over the system and throwing complex events based on Fusion rules. The session is intended to be global in nature as ALL events will flow through this CEP processor. Another use case would be for long running processes or work-flows that interact with data streams. The 3 patterns I'm looking at are: - the Singleton pattern - use of JMS and MDBs - use of external rule server(s) Any thoughts about scalability issues? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/StatefulKnowledgeSession-and-J2EE-tp21968423p21968423.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
Re: [rules-users] Drools rule writing question
Fusion On 11/02/09 6:35 PM, "Denny Lee" wrote: > Hello, > I am new to Drools. We have been using JESS for a while and ran into a > problem that we cannot solve and is hoping Drools have a solution. Is there > anything in the Drools language / rules that allows for temporal evaluation > within the rules? What I mean is, say your rule examines 2 variables, var1 > and var2, and if both are true it fires. Is there any way/technique to say > "If var1 becomes true and var2 was ALREADY true, fire" and "If var1 was > ALREADY true and var2 becomes true, DO NOT fire?" I've worked w/ JESS and > there is nothing built into the language that does this. Is there something > in Drools that can handle this or some general techniques that can deal with > something like this? > > Thanks. > > Denny > > > > ___ > 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] Drools rule writing question
Hello, I am new to Drools. We have been using JESS for a while and ran into a problem that we cannot solve and is hoping Drools have a solution. Is there anything in the Drools language / rules that allows for temporal evaluation within the rules? What I mean is, say your rule examines 2 variables, var1 and var2, and if both are true it fires. Is there any way/technique to say "If var1 becomes true and var2 was ALREADY true, fire" and "If var1 was ALREADY true and var2 becomes true, DO NOT fire?" I've worked w/ JESS and there is nothing built into the language that does this. Is there something in Drools that can handle this or some general techniques that can deal with something like this? Thanks. Denny ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] drools-solver -- logger error (slf4j binding)?
Hi, I'm using the drools-solver.M5 build through Maven and have gotten the following error while running my project: SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder". SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further details. I've checked my dependency graph, and drools-solver references the sl4j-api, but no implementation. I checked the mvnrepository, and there are several other slf4j related projects. What is the preferred binding for JDK1.6? best wishes, Andrew - Andrew Waterman San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico +52 1 967 107 5902 +1 510 342 5693 ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Drools Performance
Ashish, There are a lot of variables involved in performance benchmarking. Your scenario is common in many industries, such as insurance, that utilise large decision tables. We have previously published benchmarks comparing various rules engines at http://illation.com.au/benchmarks, however they don¹t specifically address the use case of large rulesets, but instead stress various aspects of the rules engines. We are working to put together a new set of benchmarks that will better test typical use cases, and we¹d welcome your comments and participation. We are very early in this process, and should have a publically available blog to discuss the topic. Regards, - Steve Nunez On 11/02/09 11:37 AM, "Ashish Soni" wrote: > Hi All , > > I am not sure if this question is asked previously but it would be great if > any one can put some lights on this .. > > If i have 10,000 rules with same priority or equal priority then how drools > engine evaluate them or what is the path it chooses. > > Also if there any performance metrics available ,please point to the links. > > > Thanks and Regards, > Ashish soni ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Drools-solver performance optimizations?
Hi Wim,
I'm just starting to use the solver as well on a project. Have you
ensured that the algorithm implemented by the other solver is the same
as the local search your using for drools-solver? You may want to
think about tuning that piece, by switching to Geoffrey's tabu
implementation.
I believe there are a few other examples in drools-solver-examples
that show some different approaches to both using the MoveFactory
(small-grained moves versus rough-grain moves) as well as with a
StartingSolutionInitializer.
Anyway, thought I'd pass on a few ideas from my limited experience
with the project and interacting on the list.
best,
A
-
Andrew Waterman
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico
+52 1 967 107 5902
+1 510 342 5693
On Feb 11, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Wim Vancroonenburg wrote:
Hi,
I'm a student currently evaluating Drools Solver for my
dissertation. I am currently trying to solve an optimization problem
with two different solvers (one of which is Drools Solver) and I am
comparing the results with earlier obtained results from literature.
However I am having some troubles with the performance of Drools
Solver, and I was hoping if someone could look at my rules to see if
they could be tuned:
rule "patientsToBeAssignedToRoomsOfAppropriateSex"
when
$n : Night();
$room : Room(sexRestriction == Sex.Dependent &&
capacity > 1);
$genders : ArrayList(size>1) from
collect( PatientStay(bed.room == $room, night == $n) );
exists PatientStay(bed.room == $room, night == $n,
$a : admission, eval(((PatientStay)
$genders.get(0)).getAdmission().getPatient().getSex() !=
$a.getPatient().getSex()));
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence
("patientsToBeAssignedToRoomsOfAppropriateSex
",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_HARD,50,$room,$n));
end
rule "hasRequiredRoomProperties"
when
$pr : RequiredRoomPropertiesConstraint($a :
admission, $r : room, $w : weight );
$ps : PatientStay(admission == $a, bed.room == $r);
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence
("hasPreferredRoomProperties",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,50*$w,
$ps));
end
rule "unplannedTransfers"
when
$ps : PatientStay($a : admission, $b : bed, $n :
night);
$ps2 : PatientStay(admission == $a, bed != $b, $n2 :
night,eval($n.getIndex()+1 == $n2.getIndex()));
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence
("unplannedTransfers",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,110,$ps,$ps2));
end
rule "hasPreferredRoomProperties"
when
$pr : PreferredRoomPropertiesConstraint($a :
admission, $r : room, $w : weight );
$ps : PatientStay(admission == $a, bed.room == $r);
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence
("hasPreferredRoomProperties",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,20*$w,
$ps));
end
rule "meetsRoomPreference"
when
$mr : MeetsRoomPreferenceConstraint($a : admission,
$r : room);
$ps : PatientStay(admission == $a, bed.room == $r);
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence
("meetsRoomPreference",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,8,$ps));
end
rule "inGoodDepartment"
when
$gd : GoodDepartmentConstraint($a : admission, $d :
department);
$ps : PatientStay(admission == $a, $b : bed,
eval($b.getRoom().getDepartment().equals($d)));
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence
("inGoodDepartment",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,10,$ps));
end
rule "inGoodRoom"
when
$gr : GoodRoomConstraint($a : admission, $r : room,
$w : weight);
$ps : PatientStay(admission == $a, bed.room == $r);
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("inGoodRoom",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,10*
$w,$ps));
end
rule "calcScore"
salience -10
when
$count : Number() from
accumulate( IntConstraintOccurrence($w : weight) ,
sum
($w) );
then
scoreCalculator.setScore(-$count.doubleValue());
end
The classes with **Constraint in it are possible combinations that
cause a constraint to be violated, and are calculated and inserted
at initialization time (and are never changed). I know that the rule
"patientsToBeAssignedToRoomsOfAppropriateSex" is fairly complex, but
even when I remove it, the performance is not fantastic. Is there
anything else I can do to get better performance? I'm already using
JDK 1.6 and -server mode. Furthermore, all classes used here have
their default equals and hashCode methods, so they don't have an
impact on performance.
Sincerely,
Wim Va
[rules-users] Drools-solver performance optimizations?
Hi,
I'm a student currently evaluating Drools Solver for my dissertation. I am
currently trying to solve an optimization problem with two different solvers
(one of which is Drools Solver) and I am comparing the results with earlier
obtained results from literature. However I am having some troubles with the
performance of Drools Solver, and I was hoping if someone could look at my
rules to see if they could be tuned:
rule "patientsToBeAssignedToRoomsOfAppropriateSex"
when
$n : Night();
$room : Room(sexRestriction == Sex.Dependent && capacity >
1);
$genders : ArrayList(size>1) from collect(
PatientStay(bed.room == $room, night == $n) );
exists PatientStay(bed.room == $room, night == $n, $a :
admission,
eval(((PatientStay)$genders.get(0)).getAdmission().getPatient().getSex() !=
$a.getPatient().getSex()));
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("patientsToBeAssignedToRoomsOfAppropriateSex",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_HARD,50,$room,$n));
end
rule "hasRequiredRoomProperties"
when
$pr : RequiredRoomPropertiesConstraint($a : admission, $r :
room, $w : weight );
$ps : PatientStay(admission == $a, bed.room == $r);
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("hasPreferredRoomProperties",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,50*$w,$ps));
end
rule "unplannedTransfers"
when
$ps : PatientStay($a : admission, $b : bed, $n : night);
$ps2 : PatientStay(admission == $a, bed != $b, $n2 :
night,eval($n.getIndex()+1 == $n2.getIndex()));
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("unplannedTransfers",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,110,$ps,$ps2));
end
rule "hasPreferredRoomProperties"
when
$pr : PreferredRoomPropertiesConstraint($a : admission, $r :
room, $w : weight );
$ps : PatientStay(admission == $a, bed.room == $r);
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("hasPreferredRoomProperties",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,20*$w,$ps));
end
rule "meetsRoomPreference"
when
$mr : MeetsRoomPreferenceConstraint($a : admission, $r :
room);
$ps : PatientStay(admission == $a, bed.room == $r);
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("meetsRoomPreference",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,8,$ps));
end
rule "inGoodDepartment"
when
$gd : GoodDepartmentConstraint($a : admission, $d :
department);
$ps : PatientStay(admission == $a, $b : bed,
eval($b.getRoom().getDepartment().equals($d)));
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("inGoodDepartment",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,10,$ps));
end
rule "inGoodRoom"
when
$gr : GoodRoomConstraint($a : admission, $r : room, $w :
weight);
$ps : PatientStay(admission == $a, bed.room == $r);
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("inGoodRoom",ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,10*$w,$ps));
end
rule "calcScore"
salience -10
when
$count : Number() from accumulate(
IntConstraintOccurrence($w : weight) ,
sum($w) );
then
scoreCalculator.setScore(-$count.doubleValue());
end
The classes with **Constraint in it are possible combinations that cause a
constraint to be violated, and are calculated and inserted at initialization
time (and are never changed). I know that the rule
"patientsToBeAssignedToRoomsOfAppropriateSex" is fairly complex, but even
when I remove it, the performance is not fantastic. Is there anything else I
can do to get better performance? I'm already using JDK 1.6 and -server
mode. Furthermore, all classes used here have their default equals and
hashCode methods, so they don't have an impact on performance.
Sincerely,
Wim Vancroonenburg
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Drools Performance
Hi All , I am not sure if this question is asked previously but it would be great if any one can put some lights on this .. If i have 10,000 rules with same priority or equal priority then how drools engine evaluate them or what is the path it chooses. Also if there any performance metrics available ,please point to the links. Thanks and Regards, Ashish soni ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Shadow facts
Dean, There are two unrelated things in here... the boolean flag for dynamic facts means your fact supports the property change listeners and you don't need to call modify() when you change an attribute. ShadowFacts are a complete different thing that should be mostly transparent to users. If you can provide an example, it will be easier to help you. []s Edson 2009/2/11 J Michael Dean > I am migrating from 4.07 to 5 and my previous DRL file does not function > correctly; I previousliy inserted facts with the dynamic Boolean set true. > I understand that this is no longer done because shadow facts are "not > needed" in Drools 5, but is it necessary to do anything different in the RHS > when modifying facts? My fact POJOs have a method for adding text to > themselves. I believe my rules are not working properly because nothing is > being modified - only the initial activation set fires and then nothing > happens. > > Restated, the documentation talks about how to "avoid" shadow facts in > Drools 4.07 - are the restrictions in this part of the docs necessary in > Drools 5? > > Thanks. > ___ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Shadow facts
I am migrating from 4.07 to 5 and my previous DRL file does not function correctly; I previousliy inserted facts with the dynamic Boolean set true. I understand that this is no longer done because shadow facts are "not needed" in Drools 5, but is it necessary to do anything different in the RHS when modifying facts? My fact POJOs have a method for adding text to themselves. I believe my rules are not working properly because nothing is being modified - only the initial activation set fires and then nothing happens. Restated, the documentation talks about how to "avoid" shadow facts in Drools 4.07 - are the restrictions in this part of the docs necessary in Drools 5? Thanks. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
