Re: [rules-users] [rules-dev] Technical Rules
I might be wrong, but I think DRL - BRL is still not possible.
Just had a look at org.drools.ide.common.server.util.BRDRLPersistence, and
we have the following:
public RuleModel unmarshal(String str) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException(
Still not possible to convert pure DRL to RuleModel);
}
Leo.
2010/9/14 Wolfgang Laun wolfgang.l...@gmail.com
There is a short hint in the Expert Manual, subsection 4.11.3, where
conversion between DRL and XML using classes such as DrlParser and XmlDumper
is discussed. A .brk is just the native Drools XML format.
-W
On 14 September 2010 01:17, Leonardo Gomes leonardo.f.go...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Amisha,
You should use the user's list: rules-users@lists.jboss.org for this
sort of question.
AFAIK, no you can't convert technical rules (manually written drl) to
business rules (.brl) generated with the graphical editor using Guvnor.
Cheers,
Leo.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:42 PM, apatel apa...@ondeckcapital.comwrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to port Technical Rules in Drools to Business Rules? Is
the
procedure posted somewhere?
Also is it possible to apply Drools Categories to Technical Rules?
Thanks for your help,
Amisha
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Technical-Rules-tp1468563p1468563.html
Sent from the Drools - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-dev mailing list
rules-...@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
___
rules-dev mailing list
rules-...@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
___
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] User Permissions - at rules/DSL level possible?
Hi, I am aware that we can provide user permissions at Package/Category level and restrict the users, but i want to know whether its possible to restrict the users by providing permissions at rules/DSL level, because we dont want the user to modify the DSL which would be defined by the Admin and other users would simply be using the entries in DSL for defining their rules. Is there any way to achieve this kind of permissions and also what is the minimum granular level of permission that we can restrict a user from? if any one has tried this kindly help me in this regard. Thanks, Vignesh -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/User-Permissions-at-rules-DSL-level-possible-tp1471856p1471856.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] Verify if an objects attribute exists
Pattern( field != null, eval( someFunc( field ) ) )
Mark
On 14/09/2010 05:18, lnguyen wrote:
Sorry here is some additional details...I hope I'm not making this sound more
complicated than it really is but I am attempting to restrict access to view
an account based on the logged in user.
public class User
{
private Long id;
...
private UserProfile userProfile;
}
public class UserProfile
{
private Long id;
private User supervisor;
}
So I created a function called isUserMatching to determine if the
currentUser is looking at their own account or if their supervisor is
looking at an employees account:
function boolean isUserMatching(User user)
{
User currentUser = (User) Component.getInstance(currentUser);
User supervisor = (User) user.getUserProfile().getSupervisor();
boolean result = false;
if(currentUser == user)
{
System.out.println(## currentUser = user is
TRUE #);
result = true;
}
else if((supervisor != null)
(currentUser.getId().equals(supervisor.getId(
{
System.out.println(## currentUser = supervisor is
TRUE
#);
result = true;
}
else
{
System.out.println(## currentUser/supervisor !=
user is FALSE #);
}
return result;
}
This function works as desired but not all users have a supervisor. What I'd
like to know is how can I check if a supervisor is null so that I can
prevent passing null values into functions?
Doing this eval (isUserMatching($supervisor)) results in an runtime error
of course when there is no supervisor.
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Drools 5.1.1 KnowledgeAgent and SecurityRules
This is good to know. I was just in the middle of converting to 5.1.1 but will
not stop. By the way the 5.1.1 version of Guvnor appears to be unstable under
JBoss 5.1.
Verify operations just hang. Error messages (with no message) get displayed,
Inability to sign out, etc.
Back to 5.0.1.
On Sep 9, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Tihomir Surdilovic wrote:
Inguyen, I assume you are using Seam2 in your client app. In Seam
2.2.0.CR1 (http://relation.to/Bloggers/Seam220CR1Released ) we replaced
the Drools 4 jars with Drools 5.0 jars, however the internal integration
was not changed to use the Drools 5 API.
Raise a JBSEAM (https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBSEAM) Jira and we can
see what can be done, otherwise now your option is is to pull from
Guvnor 5.0.1 in your Seam applications until Seam3 becomes available as
this will be a non-issue in our Drools module for Seam3
(http://seamframework.org/Seam3).
Tihomir
On 9/9/10 9:21 AM, lnguyen wrote:
I recently upgraded from drools guvnor 5.0.1 to 5.1.1 but I haven't seen any
examples on how to change securityRules now that RuleBase has been replaced
with KnowledgeBase.
Originally I had...
drools:rule-agent
name=securityRules
url=https://127.0.0.1:7002/drools-guvnor-5.0.1/org.drools.guvnor.Guvnor/package/Security/LATEST;
local-cache-dir=/tmp/
poll=60
auto-create=true/
security:rule-based-permission-resolver security-rules=#{securityRules}/
I tried to leave this way but then i get an error but the 5.1.1 guvnor
secures the URL so I get the following: RuleAgent(default) EXCEPTION
Response: '401: Unauthorized' for url: ...
How do configure the application security to use the KnowledgeBase?
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
The human mind is an iterative processor, it never does anything right the
first time. What it does well is to make improvements on every iteration
(deMarco)
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] [rules-dev] Technical Rules
You are right, of course. The BRL editor has its own XML format.
I just wonder whether going through a DrlParser - DrlDumper cycle might
produce a sufficiently well-behaved DRL text that could be easily enough
transformed to the BRL XML. But nothing of this is in the stable API, so
it would be wobbly in more than one way.
-W
2010/9/14 Leonardo Gomes leonardo.f.go...@gmail.com
I might be wrong, but I think DRL - BRL is still not possible.
Just had a look at org.drools.ide.common.server.util.BRDRLPersistence, and
we have the following:
public RuleModel unmarshal(String str) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException(
Still not possible to convert pure DRL to RuleModel);
}
Leo.
2010/9/14 Wolfgang Laun wolfgang.l...@gmail.com
There is a short hint in the Expert Manual, subsection 4.11.3, where
conversion between DRL and XML using classes such as DrlParser and XmlDumper
is discussed. A .brk is just the native Drools XML format.
-W
On 14 September 2010 01:17, Leonardo Gomes leonardo.f.go...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Amisha,
You should use the user's list: rules-users@lists.jboss.org for this
sort of question.
AFAIK, no you can't convert technical rules (manually written drl) to
business rules (.brl) generated with the graphical editor using Guvnor.
Cheers,
Leo.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:42 PM, apatel apa...@ondeckcapital.comwrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to port Technical Rules in Drools to Business Rules? Is
the
procedure posted somewhere?
Also is it possible to apply Drools Categories to Technical Rules?
Thanks for your help,
Amisha
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Technical-Rules-tp1468563p1468563.html
Sent from the Drools - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-dev mailing list
rules-...@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
___
rules-dev mailing list
rules-...@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
___
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] Problem with DroolsFlow transaction
Anyone? I found out that JBoss AS doesn't know which TransactionManager to use here. I have: Environment env = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newEnvironment(); env.set(EnvironmentName.ENTITY_MANAGER_FACTORY, myEmFactory); env.set(EnvironmentName.TRANSACTION_MANAGER, ); session = JPAKnowledgeService.newStatefulKnowledgeSession(knowledgeBase, null, env); So, what goes in place of in EJB3 application on JBoss 5.1.0.GA? In persistence.xml I have this line property name=hibernate.transaction.manager_lookup_class value=org.hibernate.transaction.JBossTransactionManagerLookup/ in both persistence units (one for org.drools.persistence.jpa and the other for org.drools.task). I also tried this: TransactionManager tm = (TransactionManager) new InitialContext().lookup(java:/TransactionManager); env.set(EnvironmentName.TRANSACTION_MANAGER, tm); but it doesn't work either. Is this something obvious that I don't see? Please help, I'm stuck on this for too long... -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Problem-with-DroolsFlow-transaction-tp1439637p1473330.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
[rules-users] Drools reflection problem.
Hi, in my package definition I have two kinds of facts. I use stateFullSession and I send to ksession facts of two different types. For each type I have one rule using only this type. So what I am doing is processing two different fact's types in one session. I start fireAllRules, and I know it fires good rules, and all is working fine. But problem appears later - when I want to get my fact's back using Drools reflection API. With first type (facts of first type) all is working fine, but when I change factType object to point into another type (the second one), I get problems: [ERROR] package.Type2 cannot be cast to package.Type2 java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException It is thrown when I call kbase.getFactType(package, Type2).get(factObject , filed1_name); I know that factObject is good, because when I use syso (factObject) I get what I want. What surprises me is when I call it for Type1 it works. Also, if I process in ksession only one fact type using my code, I don't get this error (for first and second fact type). Thanks, tom. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Performance differeneces using before or after
Hi, I've mentioned the test case I'm working on before. It's: If a certain value exceeds a limit more than X times within Y minutes/hours, do something. ~ Count = X , time = Y During a talk with other developers it came up that by intuition the men would have chosen a other approach than the women. We can not agree if in Drools both approaches are the same in performance or if one is more performant. Male approach: If a new event with a limit violation is received, check if within the last time Y already X events with limit violations are contained in the knowledge base . Female approach: If a new event with a limit violation is received, check if the following events contain X events with limit violation. This is limited to a monitoring time of /maximal /Y. (If there have been X events registered, before the time Y is elapsed, the window will be closed right away.) In code with Y = 1h it would be: Male: // determine new event as $triggeringEvent $otherEvent : Value (this before[0ms,1h] $triggeringEvent) Female: // determine event that opened the window as $triggeringEvent $otherEvent : Value (this after[0ms,1h] $triggeringEvent) This is just a extract so that that the comments are in fact meaningless. The focus lies on _before_ and _after_. Is one solution more efficient? Thanks! :) Tina ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] How to remove a persisted session from the database ?
Hi, I am using persistence, and since the sessions don't seem to have a standard way of getting removed from the database when they are not needed anymore, I am wondering how to do that. I am using JPA but if I call : em.remove(someSessionInfo); where em is the JPA EntityManager, that does not remove the entry from the database. if I try to use a Query returned by the em.createQuery(delete from SessionInfo where id = 1) it complains that it needs a transaction, and since I don't know how to get around the issue I am stuck. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Guvnor declarative model and ASM deserialization
In my application I am using the following flow: 1. I am using Guvnor to allow customer to define business event structure through the Declarative Model feature. 2. After defining the model, customers write rules and package them into a snapshot where my event-driven-application-server can see. 3. My server load successfully the customer packages (couple hundreds of them). 4. Customer uses HornetQ client to produce events that respects the model that has been created using Guvnor. 5. I have HornetQ listeners in my application that listens to new events. 6. HornetQ listeners tries to deserialize the message bytes to an event object to insert it to the customer ksession The problem is that my server classloader has no idea about the model, so I use ASM to inject the class definition when ClassNotFoundException is thrown however this was not enough as serialVersionUID of client side object is going to be different from the ASM default injected one. I know some of you might say why cant I use the same static final serialVersionUID in the client side as well as in the server side - the answer is I want to give control to customers to define whatever business model they want using Guvnor. Using jar file model will not give freedom to business users that Guvnor provide. I am wondering if some of you were facing the same issue while using the fusion message queue streaming gate? I am thinking to extend the Java ObjectInputStream and implement my own deserialization. Could Drools ksession accept bytes along side with objects (I mean in the future) - Something like; ksession.insert(bytes) Any ideas? Abdel ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Guvnor war 5.1
We are currently using drools guvnor 5.0.1 deplyed in Weblogic 10.3. We needed to multithread the call to the rule engine. We were facing the issue of Concurrent modification as described in https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-1888. It seemed to have been fixed and we tried upgrading it to 5.1. I updated the jars in the client side to 5.1 and that resolved the problem of the concurrent modification exception. We thought we would also upgrade the drools-guvnor.war to 5.1.However it seems that access to the rules package http://localhost:7001/drools-guvnor/org.drools.guvnor.Guvnor/package/usage/LATEST.drl returned 401(HTTP) response code. The earlier 5.0.1 didn't require authentication. And the credentials are the same with which the weblogic domain is created. I am new to drools so not sure of a lot of things. Is there some configuration change required to disable authentication. -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Guvnor-war-5-1-tp1474465p1474465.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] Performance differeneces using before or after
For a pair of events, the performance will be the same with before/after. If you have more than 2, though, best would be to use sliding windows. Edson 2010/9/14 Tina Vießmann tviessm...@stud.hs-bremen.de: Hi, I've mentioned the test case I'm working on before. It's: If a certain value exceeds a limit more than X times within Y minutes/hours, do something. ~ Count = X , time = Y During a talk with other developers it came up that by intuition the men would have chosen a other approach than the women. We can not agree if in Drools both approaches are the same in performance or if one is more performant. Male approach: If a new event with a limit violation is received, check if within the last time Y already X events with limit violations are contained in the knowledge base . Female approach: If a new event with a limit violation is received, check if the following events contain X events with limit violation. This is limited to a monitoring time of maximal Y. (If there have been X events registered, before the time Y is elapsed, the window will be closed right away.) In code with Y = 1h it would be: Male: // determine new event as $triggeringEvent $otherEvent : Value (this before[0ms,1h] $triggeringEvent) Female: // determine event that opened the window as $triggeringEvent $otherEvent : Value (this after[0ms,1h] $triggeringEvent) This is just a extract so that that the comments are in fact meaningless. The focus lies on before and after. Is one solution more efficient? Thanks! :) Tina ___ 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 ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Performance differeneces using before or after
Thank you, Edson. I've thought about it. There are some inconsistencies in the application integrating my application. Therefore using sliding windows is kind of problematic. There for I'm using the events timestamps as a compromise ... I know, its very critizisable, but I can't change it. Thanks anyway :) For a pair of events, the performance will be the same with before/after. If you have more than 2, though, best would be to use sliding windows. Edson 2010/9/14 Tina Vießmanntviessm...@stud.hs-bremen.de: Hi, I've mentioned the test case I'm working on before. It's: If a certain value exceeds a limit more than X times within Y minutes/hours, do something. ~ Count = X , time = Y During a talk with other developers it came up that by intuition the men would have chosen a other approach than the women. We can not agree if in Drools both approaches are the same in performance or if one is more performant. Male approach: If a new event with a limit violation is received, check if within the last time Y already X events with limit violations are contained in the knowledge base . Female approach: If a new event with a limit violation is received, check if the following events contain X events with limit violation. This is limited to a monitoring time of maximal Y. (If there have been X events registered, before the time Y is elapsed, the window will be closed right away.) In code with Y = 1h it would be: Male: // determine new event as $triggeringEvent $otherEvent : Value (this before[0ms,1h] $triggeringEvent) Female: // determine event that opened the window as $triggeringEvent $otherEvent : Value (this after[0ms,1h] $triggeringEvent) This is just a extract so that that the comments are in fact meaningless. The focus lies on before and after. Is one solution more efficient? Thanks! :) Tina ___ 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] EntityManager is closed
Hi I am using the statefulknowledgesession with jpa persistence with spring...exactly configured as per in the section : Example 2.5. JPA configuration for StatefulKnowledgeSessions http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/5.1.1.34858.FINAL/drools-introduction/html_single/index.html#d0e47 I am using, spring 3.0.3 release, hibernate 3.5.1, drools 5.1.1. Spring is closing the entity manager upon invoking ksession.startProcess() and got the exception EntityManager is closed , actually in drools, the class org.drools.persistence.processinstance.persisters.JPAVariablePersister is using entitymanager from cmd_scoped_entity_manager ( in my case, it is org.hibernate.ejb.EntityManagerImpl) but this is being closed by spring aop transaction surrounded on my calling method for ksession.startProcess(). Any help would be appreciated... thx I attached the complete stack trace of the exception in this message. http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n1475301/exception.txt exception.txt -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/EntityManager-is-closed-tp1475301p1475301.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] [rules-dev] Technical Rules
The thing is that, afaik, the DrlParser in itself doesn't give you something
that you can use to generate the BRL XML, even for a well-behaved DRL. You
would have to do some sort of model-to-model transformation that would have
RuleModel as an outcome. With the RuleModel at hand you can easily marshal
it to BRL XML.
There are visitors for the RuleModel that generate BRL XML (quite simple
with XStream) and pure DRL, and when you want to compile a BRL rule package
today, it uses the DRL visitor to generate the DRL that can be used to
compile.
BRL XML: hasn't evolved lately mainly because Mark and the others are
waiting for RuleML to become the canonical XML representation. I think that
the BRL Schema misses a lot of things that you have today in a DRL and
that's why nobody wanted to make the effort to have a DRL - BRL parser.
This part risk to be completely rewritten the day they decide to use RuleML.
Having said that, I still thing that I might be wrong since I haven't looked
much at the 5.x code except for the parts that I already knew from 4.0.7 :)
Cheers,
Leo.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Wolfgang Laun wolfgang.l...@gmail.comwrote:
You are right, of course. The BRL editor has its own XML format.
I just wonder whether going through a DrlParser - DrlDumper cycle might
produce a sufficiently well-behaved DRL text that could be easily enough
transformed to the BRL XML. But nothing of this is in the stable API, so
it would be wobbly in more than one way.
-W
2010/9/14 Leonardo Gomes leonardo.f.go...@gmail.com
I might be wrong, but I think DRL - BRL is still not possible.
Just had a look at org.drools.ide.common.server.util.BRDRLPersistence, and
we have the following:
public RuleModel unmarshal(String str) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException(
Still not possible to convert pure DRL to RuleModel);
}
Leo.
2010/9/14 Wolfgang Laun wolfgang.l...@gmail.com
There is a short hint in the Expert Manual, subsection 4.11.3, where
conversion between DRL and XML using classes such as DrlParser and XmlDumper
is discussed. A .brk is just the native Drools XML format.
-W
On 14 September 2010 01:17, Leonardo Gomes
leonardo.f.go...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Amisha,
You should use the user's list: rules-users@lists.jboss.org for this
sort of question.
AFAIK, no you can't convert technical rules (manually written drl) to
business rules (.brl) generated with the graphical editor using Guvnor.
Cheers,
Leo.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:42 PM, apatel apa...@ondeckcapital.comwrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to port Technical Rules in Drools to Business Rules? Is
the
procedure posted somewhere?
Also is it possible to apply Drools Categories to Technical Rules?
Thanks for your help,
Amisha
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Technical-Rules-tp1468563p1468563.html
Sent from the Drools - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-dev mailing list
rules-...@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
___
rules-dev mailing list
rules-...@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
___
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] [rules-dev] Technical Rules
On 14/09/2010 21:17, Leonardo Gomes wrote:
The thing is that, afaik, the DrlParser in itself doesn't give you
something that you can use to generate the BRL XML, even for a
well-behaved DRL. You would have to do some sort of model-to-model
transformation that would have RuleModel as an outcome. With the
RuleModel at hand you can easily marshal it to BRL XML.
There are visitors for the RuleModel that generate BRL XML (quite
simple with XStream) and pure DRL, and when you want to compile a BRL
rule package today, it uses the DRL visitor to generate the DRL that
can be used to compile.
BRL XML: hasn't evolved lately mainly because Mark and the others are
waiting for RuleML to become the canonical XML representation. I think
that the BRL Schema misses a lot of things that you have today in a
DRL and that's why nobody wanted to make the effort to have a DRL -
BRL parser. This part risk to be completely rewritten the day they
decide to use RuleML.
Exactly, we don't want to mature and promote a proprietary XML and waste
the time and create the confusion from not following a standard.
I think people working on the guided editor are just doing hacks to limp
the current xml along for the purposes of the guided editor until we can
move to something more long term.
Mark
Having said that, I still thing that I might be wrong since I haven't
looked much at the 5.x code except for the parts that I already knew
from 4.0.7 :)
Cheers,
Leo.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Wolfgang Laun
wolfgang.l...@gmail.com mailto:wolfgang.l...@gmail.com wrote:
You are right, of course. The BRL editor has its own XML format.
I just wonder whether going through a DrlParser - DrlDumper cycle
might produce a sufficiently well-behaved DRL text that could be
easily enough transformed to the BRL XML. But nothing of this is
in the stable API, so it would be wobbly in more than one way.
-W
2010/9/14 Leonardo Gomes leonardo.f.go...@gmail.com
mailto:leonardo.f.go...@gmail.com
I might be wrong, but I think DRL - BRL is still not possible.
Just had a look at
org.drools.ide.common.server.util.BRDRLPersistence, and we
have the following:
public RuleModel unmarshal(String str) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException(
Still not possible to convert pure DRL to
RuleModel);
}
Leo.
2010/9/14 Wolfgang Laun wolfgang.l...@gmail.com
mailto:wolfgang.l...@gmail.com
There is a short hint in the Expert Manual, subsection
4.11.3, where conversion between DRL and XML using classes
such as DrlParser and XmlDumper is discussed. A .brk is
just the native Drools XML format.
-W
On 14 September 2010 01:17, Leonardo Gomes
leonardo.f.go...@gmail.com
mailto:leonardo.f.go...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Amisha,
You should use the user's list:
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org for this sort of
question.
AFAIK, no you can't convert technical rules (manually
written drl) to business rules (.brl) generated with
the graphical editor using Guvnor.
Cheers,
Leo.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:42 PM, apatel
apa...@ondeckcapital.com
mailto:apa...@ondeckcapital.com wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to port Technical Rules in Drools
to Business Rules? Is the
procedure posted somewhere?
Also is it possible to apply Drools Categories to
Technical Rules?
Thanks for your help,
Amisha
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Technical-Rules-tp1468563p1468563.html
Sent from the Drools - Dev mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
___
rules-dev mailing list
rules-...@lists.jboss.org
mailto:rules-...@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
___
rules-dev mailing list
rules-...@lists.jboss.org
mailto:rules-...@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
[rules-users] Guvnor Asset versioning vs Package snapshot versioning
I am using Guvnor packaging and snapshot creation. I have three environment DEV, UAT and Production, I configured each environment with a package snapshot to listen to, each time the package change, I build it then overwrite the snapshot for that particular environment. This was working great for me, however when my server fail to deploy the new updated snapshot package, I want to roll back to the old working one which was overwritten already - this is a problem. Why Guvnor does not provide package versioning, just like asset versioning? I took a look at the code and was thinking to add a control before overwriting the package snapshot to prevent the user to backup his package snapshot before overwriting it which will lead to a package clone before the overwrite happen. What do you guys think? I will volunteer to add this feature if you think it make sense. Thoughts? Abdel ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] EntityManager is closed
I have the same problem with drools 5.2 Using JPA with tomcat on bitronix. I temporarily resolved with: env.set (EnvironmentName.CMD_SCOPED_ENTITY_MANAGER, emf.createEntityManager ()); Every time I use the session. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] [rules-dev] Technical Rules
2010/9/14 Mark Proctor mproc...@codehaus.org Exactly, we don't want to mature and promote a proprietary XML and waste the time and create the confusion from not following a standard. Any XML standard for rules and especially production system rules is way behind what systems like Drools, Jess and others are providing. True, a common subset comprising patterns, constraints and FOL quantifiers is there, but other features that enhance the expressive power of a Rule Language are missing or digressing. As for the common subset, I'm not at all convinced that there is general agreement of how to deal with the akward CE or with its restrictions and pitfalls. Also, there is the issue of data types... From a Rule Vendor's point of view, there might be some commercial incentive to implement an import from some standard rule XML, but not so much for an export. And if you don't have an export from RBS x, why would you need an import for RBS Y? But possibly I'm missing the obvious ;-) Cheers Wolfgang ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
