Re: [rules-users] Binding a variable with an OR pattern
On 08/13/2013 04:31 PM, Wolfgang Laun wrote: > Sorry, I missed that. > > rule "R7012: UpdateInstrumentsIssuerFrom700[01]" > agenda-group "TRANSFER_TO_LIVE" > salience 100 > when > sirole : SourcingInstitutionRole(sourcing_Status == > SourcingStatus.IMPORTED, > $rcd: roleCd == "7000" || == "7001") > not SourcingInstitutionRole(sourcing_Status == SourcingStatus.IMPORTED, > roleCd == "7001" && > $rcd ) > Works nicely! Just to make sure that I correctly understood it: The "roleCd == "7001" && > $rcd" part of the last pattern could also be written as "roleCd == "7001" && != $rcd". That && > is just to make sure the last pattern matches for the 7000 fact if there is a corresponding 7001 fact. Thanks again! -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Binding a variable with an OR pattern
On 08/13/2013 03:18 PM, Wolfgang Laun wrote: > rule "R7012: UpdateInstrumentsIssuerFrom700[01]" > agenda-group "TRANSFER_TO_LIVE" > salience 100 > when > sirole : SourcingInstitutionRole(sourcing_Status == > SourcingStatus.IMPORTED, > roleCd == "7000" || == "7001") > > and minor changes in the then part. Hm, that was my first thought too - but doesn't such a rule fire 2 times if there are 2 facts (one with 7000 and another one with 7001)? Because this would be wrong: if both facts exist, the rule should only trigger once, with the 7001 fact. The 7000 fact would need to be ignored in that case. Probably I wasn't clear when I stated my problem :-) Sorry Thanks! -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Binding a variable with an OR pattern
On 08/13/2013 03:02 PM, Joe Ammann wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Trying to do the following: as one pattern of a rule, I want to bind a
> variable to a fact with code "7001", or (if such a fact does not exist)
> to one with the value "7000".
>
> Until now, I haven't been able to formulate this in one single rule, as
> simple as it sounds - probably I'm just overlooking something basic ...
>
> Currently I have 2 rules:
>
> rule "R7012: UpdateInstrumentsIssuerFrom7001"
> agenda-group "TRANSFER_TO_LIVE"
> salience 100
> when
> sirole : SourcingInstitutionRole(sourcing_Status ==
> SourcingStatus.IMPORTED,
> roleCd == "7001" )
> insti : Institution ( ids != null, ids.sspFI ==
> sirole.institutionProviderId )
> instr : Instrument ( ids != null, ids.sspFI == sirole.providerId,
> issuer.issuerId != insti.id )
> then
> tlog.info("Modify issuer of {} to {} (from role code 7001)", instr,
> insti);
> modify (instr) {
> issuer.issuerId = insti.id
> }
> end
>
> rule "R7012: UpdateInstrumentsIssuerFrom7000"
> agenda-group "TRANSFER_TO_LIVE"
> salience 100
> when
> sirole : SourcingInstitutionRole(sourcing_Status ==
> SourcingStatus.IMPORTED, roleCd == "7000" )
> insti : Institution ( ids != null, ids.sspFI ==
> sirole.institutionProviderId )
> instr : Instrument ( ids != null, ids.sspFI == sirole.providerId,
> issuer.issuerId != insti.id )
> not SourcingInstitutionRole(sourcing_Status == SourcingStatus.IMPORTED,
> providerId == instr.ids.sspFI,
> institutionProviderId == instr.ids.sspFI,
> roleCd == "7001" )
> then
> tlog.info("Modify issuer of {} to {} (from role code 7000)", instr,
> insti);
> modify (instr) {
> issuer.issuerId = insti.id
> }
> end
>
> This seems to work, but I would have expected that it should be easy to
> do this in one single rule !? But I just can't come up with a rule that
> does what I want...
>
> How would I formulate such as rule?
>
BTW: Just realized that those 2 rules would - in some cases - result in
and endless loop. Fixed that with a guard fact, but still my original
question remains.
--
CU, Joe
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Binding a variable with an OR pattern
Hi all
Trying to do the following: as one pattern of a rule, I want to bind a
variable to a fact with code "7001", or (if such a fact does not exist)
to one with the value "7000".
Until now, I haven't been able to formulate this in one single rule, as
simple as it sounds - probably I'm just overlooking something basic ...
Currently I have 2 rules:
rule "R7012: UpdateInstrumentsIssuerFrom7001"
agenda-group "TRANSFER_TO_LIVE"
salience 100
when
sirole : SourcingInstitutionRole(sourcing_Status ==
SourcingStatus.IMPORTED,
roleCd == "7001" )
insti : Institution ( ids != null, ids.sspFI ==
sirole.institutionProviderId )
instr : Instrument ( ids != null, ids.sspFI == sirole.providerId,
issuer.issuerId != insti.id )
then
tlog.info("Modify issuer of {} to {} (from role code 7001)", instr,
insti);
modify (instr) {
issuer.issuerId = insti.id
}
end
rule "R7012: UpdateInstrumentsIssuerFrom7000"
agenda-group "TRANSFER_TO_LIVE"
salience 100
when
sirole : SourcingInstitutionRole(sourcing_Status ==
SourcingStatus.IMPORTED, roleCd == "7000" )
insti : Institution ( ids != null, ids.sspFI ==
sirole.institutionProviderId )
instr : Instrument ( ids != null, ids.sspFI == sirole.providerId,
issuer.issuerId != insti.id )
not SourcingInstitutionRole(sourcing_Status == SourcingStatus.IMPORTED,
providerId == instr.ids.sspFI,
institutionProviderId == instr.ids.sspFI,
roleCd == "7001" )
then
tlog.info("Modify issuer of {} to {} (from role code 7000)", instr,
insti);
modify (instr) {
issuer.issuerId = insti.id
}
end
This seems to work, but I would have expected that it should be easy to
do this in one single rule !? But I just can't come up with a rule that
does what I want...
How would I formulate such as rule?
--
CU, Joe
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Rule set execution performance and memory consumption issues
On 08/05/2013 09:04 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote: > Fine. Although occasionally useful, "from " is often used > as a cover-up for inadequate design of fact types. (from > collect/accumulate is a different matter.) That was exactly the case before we found out how to make fact types "more rule friendly". Luckily we are generating the fact classes from a model, so we could implement some "rule helper functionality" quite easily. For example, we generate all fact classes in 2 incarnations: once as fully featured implementation classes with Hibernate, JAXB and god-knows-what dependencies for the runtime system, and once as "almost pure Java beans" for using them as models in Guvnor. > Hmm, there isn't much. Perhaps I should consider writing another white > paper on monitoring. That would be an excellent idea, me thinks ! I think with the Annotations coming in Drools 6 one could put together a really useful set of monitoring annotations (I have some experience doing this for Java/Spring, but not for Drools, obviously. But I could be a good tester :-) > > Activations are created whenever WM changes (or rule base changes) > make LHSs true for some fact set. At first, an activation is added to > the agenda. Firing removes an activation, but so does any change to > the set of facts in the WM. For instance: >rule AB when > A( $aid: id ) > not B( id == $aid ) >then ... end > Inserting 100k As and *then* 100k matching Bs before calling > fireAllRules creates and deletes 100k activations; with Bs before As > nothing is wasted. Aha! That could be my problem, I'm doing exactly that in one case. Wasn't really aware the the sequence of fact insertion can have such a great impact... > Activations can be destroyed by calling clear() on the Agenda, and > they can "evaporate" by being filtered away by an AgendaFilter that's > passed to the fireXY method. > I can see use cases for using an AgendaFilter (like "eliminating" certain rules without changing the rule set and without clobbering the LHS with guard facts. But what would be a good example where I would use clear() on the Agenda ? Can't really think of one, but maybe I still did not understand the concept fully... -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Rule set execution performance and memory consumption issues
On 08/05/2013 06:29 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote: > Guete Morge Joe, :-) Guete Morge Wolfgang > > from that other thread I can recall that you are using "from > ", which (not knowing the rest) would be high up on my > suspect list. That's one thing I already learnt :-) I'm not using any "from" clauses in my rule sets which are used against the "big" fact sets. That other rule set from the other thread was used in a different context, where the number of facts is much smaller (in the hundreds). > > And, in order to learn more, some monitoring should be considered. The > number of activation creations and deletions (not by firing) can > indicate wasted work that might be avoided. I tried to implement something like that, but must admit that I don't yet understand how I would do such a monitoring?! All I currently have are custom AgendaEventListener and WorkingMemoryEventListener. I would suspect that to implement such a monitoring, I would use void activationCreated(ActivationCreatedEvent event); void activationCancelled(ActivationCancelledEvent event); of the AgendaEventListener. Could you point me to some documentation that explains when exactly those events are triggered? Until now, I haven't found too much doc on these aspects of Drools :-/ -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Rule set execution performance and memory consumption issues
Hi Wolfgang
On 08/04/2013 03:10 PM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> A simple test shows that, with the rules as shown, you can insert 100k
> Assignments and an equal number of SourceAssignments (with ~300
> InstrumentList facts) in a matter of seconds, irrespective of the
> number of hits and misses, either way. I suspect that there is some
> other fly in the ointment.
I suspect this too, but am unable to lay my fingers on it,
unfortunately. That's why I started to question my basic pattern. But
all my test trying to get to the core of the problem showed the same as
your quick tests - there is absolutely no fundamental problem handling a
couple of 100'000 objects.
>
> There is no "Instrument" pattern in any of the rules, which makes your
> post slightly inconsistent in itself.
Right - I was trying to explain the pattern which I suspected to be the
culprit, without posting a dozen Java classes and a couple of dozens of
rules. Always a difficult thing to do. The real rules have many more
patterns, after matching the basic objects, e.g.
rule "R1110: MatchExistingAssignment"
when
sa : SourcingAssignment( )
a : Assignment( instrumentId == sa.instrumentId, instrumentListId ==
sa.instrumentListId )
i : Instrument( id == instrumentId, foType == FOTYPE.Stock,
statusCd == INSTRUMENT_STATUS.Draft )
not DQAttribute ( rootId == i.id, attributePath ==
Instrument._ATTR_statusCd )
then
I think I have in the meantime found the main issue - it was one single
rule that caused the majority of the problem. It was written really
stupidly ... The time is now down to ~ 2 minutes. Still I see in the log
2013-08-05 00:36:56.224 [ain] DEBUG: Check:
start inserting objects into working memory {|| - |}
2013-08-05 00:36:56.225 [ain] DEBUG: Check: next
object type: SourcingInstrument, (12668 instances) {|| - |}
2013-08-05 00:36:56.701 [ain] DEBUG: Check: next
object type: SourcingInstrumentList, (38 instances) {|| - |}
2013-08-05 00:36:56.707 [ain] DEBUG: Check: next
object type: SourcingAssignment, (194693 instances) {|| - |}
2013-08-05 00:36:57.573 [ain] DEBUG: Check: next
object type: Instrument, (17876 instances) {|| - |}
2013-08-05 00:37:41.009 [ain] DEBUG: Check: next
object type: InstrumentList, (49 instances) {|| - |}
2013-08-05 00:37:41.359 [ain] DEBUG: Check:
finished inserting objects into working memory {|| - |}
2013-08-05 00:37:41.360 [ain] DEBUG: Check: fire
validate staging rules {|| - |}
2013-08-05 00:37:43.502 [ain] DEBUG: Check:
validate staging rules finished, 147674 executed {|| - |}
2013-08-05 00:37:43.502 [ain] DEBUG: Check:
start inserting objects into working memory {|| - |}
2013-08-05 00:37:43.502 [ain] DEBUG: Check: next
object type: Assignment, (120006 instances) {|| - |}
2013-08-05 00:37:50.114 [ain] DEBUG: Check:
finished inserting objects into working memory {|| - |}
And I'm wondering a bit why inserting 17876 Instruments takes 45
seconds, while inserting 194693 SourcingAssignments takes less than a
second.
I must admit that I have absolutely no clue how I would systematically
debug such a situation and try to find out which rules are causing the
"problem". I stumbled over this one stupid rule just by going through
them one by one. I'm trying to get some experience to cope with such
problems - since I'm not the only one writing the rules, I continue to
see such "unexplicable" slowdowns.
Sigh - I guess I still have A LOT to learn about Drools :-)
Thanks for your help Wolfgang - and BTW: your whitepaper about rule
patterns is a major reference for my learning.
--
CU, Joe
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Rule set execution performance and memory consumption issues
Hi all (sorry for the lenghty post, I'm trying to describe a basic pattern) I have a set of similar rules which work ok, but due to increasing number of facts are starting to create performance headaches. They all share a basic pattern, and I wanted to ask if you think that my approach is feasible - or if I should choose a totally different approach. The basic pattern is that I have a set of facts of one type, where every fact "owns" a collection of facts of another type. The association is not a simple one, rather it has some attributes on its own. The ruleset is triggered when a new file delivery from a financial data provider arrives, and we want to check the quality of the new data. Examples: FinancialInstrument -> Recommendation/Rating (where the recommendation has a date, a rating code, etc.) InstrumentList -> FinancialInstrumentAssignment (where the assignment has a priority, a validFrom date, etc.) So we have existing assignments in our database (say 100 InstrumentLists, 20'000 Instruments, 200'000 individual list assignments), and a new file arrives. The data in this file is converted and loaded into staging tables, and ends up in special Java objects we call "SourcingXXX". So a "Instrument" always has a corresponding "SourcingInstrument" class. The rules must validate the incoming data and modify (insert, update, delete) the existing objects. My current basic rule pattern is that for every such "association", I have 3 or more rules like: # the mappings that already exist rule "R1110: MatchExistingAssignment" when sa : SourcingAssignment( ) a : Assignment( instrumentId == sa.instrumentId, instrumentListId == sa.instrumentListId ) then # apply the logic retract(a); retract(sa); end # new mappings must be created rule "R: MatchNewAssignment" when sa : SourcingAssignment( ) not a : Assignment( instrumentId == sa.instrumentId, instrumentListId == sa.instrumentListId ) il : InstrumentList( id == sa.instrumentListId ) then # create new assignment Assignment a = ... retract(sa); end # missing mappings must be removed # execute late when the above have had a chance rule "R1112: RemoveAssignment" salience -100 when a : Assignment( ) then # remove the assignment retract(a); end I shortened these rules to emphasize the basic pattern (hopefully no typos made..). Normally the rules have more conditions than just the mapping conditions shown here, and typically there is more than one rule for the "new case" and the "already exists case". Typical fact numbers are - a few 100-1000 of the "owning" object (InstrumentList above) - a few 10'000 of the "owned" object (Instrument above) - a few 100'000 of the "assignment" object (Assignment above) I'm starting to see problematic runtimes (~20 minutes) and memory consumption (1-2 GB), of course mainly with the "assignment object" rules, where 100'000 Sourcing objects are matched against 100'000 or so existing objects. Most of that is of course used during the insertion of the facts, the fireAllRules() is fast (1-2 minutes). Is my approach totally flawed? Is there a fundamentally different approach? I see that some simple cases could be done without Drools in SQL or Java, but IMHO the more complex cases result in unmanageable Java/SQL code (we already have one example of a 200 line SQL statement that nobody dares to touch...) -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Testing for non-existance of an object in list
On 08/04/2013 10:05 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote: > The rule is correct, and it works with similar scenarios.There may be > a bug, due to circumstances. Can you post a simple but complete set of > files to reproduce this? > You're perfectly right :-) The rule was correct, but as I wrote in an earlier post, I forgot to modify() the DQAttribute fact after changing the checkViolations collection. So the engine could not know the correct contents of the collection. Thanks for looking into this! -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Testing for non-existance of an object in list
Sorry, the actual error in my logic was totally unrelated to the
fragment below.
The problem was that the DQAttribute that should have matched below was
inserted by another rule, but the insertion was done at a time when the
checkViolations collection was still emtpy. And I had forgotten the
modify() after filling the checkViolations collection.
So the rule "saw" an empty collection and that last condition did not
trigger. Once I corrected that, things started working :-)
On 08/03/2013 10:59 PM, Joe Ammann wrote:
> Here's what I currently have (Drools 5.5.0 btw):
>
> rule "R2030: UpdateDQAttribute"
> dialect "mvel"
> agenda-group "PROCESS_CHECKRESULTS"
> when
> pv : PriceViolation ( p : changedPrice.price, dqc : check )
> ps : PriceSeries ( id == p.seriesId )
> i : Instrument ( id == ps.instrument.id )
> dqa : DQAttribute ( rootId == i.id, objectId == p.id )
> not dqcv : DQCheckViolation ( check.id == dqc.id ) from
> dqa.checkViolations
> then
> # debug
> for (DQCheckViolation dqcv : dqa.checkViolations) {
> logger.debug("dqc: {}, dqcv: {}", dqc.id, dqcv.check.id);
>
> }
> end
>
> The rule fires and the log statement produces
>
> PriceCheck: dqc: 6fc6636b-9b7c-4302-bce7-1680eec57830, dqcv:
> 6fc6636b-9b7c-4302-bce7-1680eec57830
>
> The ids are the same, so I would have expected that last LHS condition
> to avoid that the rule fires.
--
CU, Joe
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Testing for non-existance of an object in list
Hi all
I'm still struggling with the handling of lists and membership in the
LHS of rule. I'm trying to formulate a rule that only fires if a certain
object is not yet a member of a list.
Here's what I currently have (Drools 5.5.0 btw):
rule "R2030: UpdateDQAttribute"
dialect "mvel"
agenda-group "PROCESS_CHECKRESULTS"
when
pv : PriceViolation ( p : changedPrice.price, dqc : check )
ps : PriceSeries ( id == p.seriesId )
i : Instrument ( id == ps.instrument.id )
dqa : DQAttribute ( rootId == i.id, objectId == p.id )
not dqcv : DQCheckViolation ( check.id == dqc.id ) from
dqa.checkViolations
then
# debug
for (DQCheckViolation dqcv : dqa.checkViolations) {
logger.debug("dqc: {}, dqcv: {}", dqc.id, dqcv.check.id);
}
end
The rule fires and the log statement produces
PriceCheck: dqc: 6fc6636b-9b7c-4302-bce7-1680eec57830, dqcv:
6fc6636b-9b7c-4302-bce7-1680eec57830
The ids are the same, so I would have expected that last LHS condition
to avoid that the rule fires.
--
CU, Joe
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Drools with Gemfire
Hi Rich On 08/06/2012 03:26 PM, rtella wrote: > I'm looking into integrating Drools with a system that has large (40GB+) > Gemfire Maps. The rules would need to access the Gemfire Maps, which can be > updated at any time.I understand I can't access the Gemfire Maps as > global data since they aren't immutable. Inserting the maps also doesn't > seem like a good idea either since I'd have to call modify() frequently on > Maps with as many as 1M elements.Is there any alternative for accessing > large amounts of changing data? We had quite a similiar use case (financial instruments, millions of associated prices in a Gemfire map, need to reason over many (~100'000) instruments, in some cases taking price data (~300mio) into account). We ended up asserting the instruments as facts into WM, do the majority of the reasoning on them, and when really required, accessing the prices from the Gemfire map with a "from" conditional expression For example: WHEN i : Instrument ( assetClass == "Bond" ) ps : PriceSeries ( instrumentId = i.id, priceType = "EndOfDay" ) price : Price ( ) from ps.getPrices()// her we access the Gemfire map . So instruments and price series (in our case) are facts in WM, while the prices stay in the Gemfire maps. Of course, that has the drawback that we can not react directly to new or modified prices. Which in our case was ok. Only a minority of the rules needed to take prices into account at all, so we first fired all rules that did not access the maps, retracting all instruments we could. Then the rules with lower salience that accessed the maps fired. -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Plugging custom verification rules into Guvnor
Hi Wolfgang On 05/17/2012 06:31 PM, Wolfgang Laun wrote: > you might also consider adding your own rule to one of the existing > verifyer DRL files. I think they are part of some .jar file, so all > you'd need to do is de-jar, edit, re-jar, or just fiddle with class > path if that's the way the verifiy locates the DRL resources. I think I will do this stepwise, to get a feeling of the needed changes in Guvnor 1) as you suggest, fiddle the drools-verifier.jar and provide new rules 2) import the rules into a Guvnor package package, and try to change the invocation of VerifierBuilderConfiguration inside Guvnor to pick up the rules from this package (instead of the changeset.xml in the drools-verifier) 3) make the name of the package configurable somehow in the Guvnor GUI and automate the import of the default rules from drools-verifier But don't hold your breath :-) -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Plugging custom verification rules into Guvnor
Hi all coming from another thread [1], Wolfgang pointed me to the Guvnor/Drools verifier. I am looking now for ways to implement my own verification rules into Guvnor. Ideally, I would like to be able to hook into 2 places in Guvnor with custom rules (maybe these are going actually through the same code path in Guvnor) 1) When editing BRLs (or other business oriented asset types) and selecting "Source -> Verify" 2) When doing "Run Analysis" on a package in QA Menu I searched the documentation and had a quick look at the source of Guvnor, but wasn't able to quickly find the way to achieve this. Any pointers? -- CU, Joe [1] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/2012-May/026518.html ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Somewhat strange question: Rules without a RHS
On 05/16/2012 09:06 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote: > On 16/05/2012, Joe Ammann wrote: >> On 05/15/2012 07:24 PM, Wolfgang Laun wrote: >>> Assuming you can get hold of the resulting DRL text, a simple script >>> might detect rules where there is nothing between "then" and "end". >> I have currently implemented something similar. A REST client that >> periodically scans the BRLs in certain Guvnor packages and fills out >> missing RHS. Problem is that the users try to test their broken rules >> faster than this script can fix them :-/ > You can easily design your DSL/DSLR in such a way that the expanded text is > jinxed, to be rectified by your scanning script. That way, they won't be > able to exec without some Joe's blessing ;-) :-) I like this! > >> I was looking for exactly that: an option to replace or inject custom >> extensions to what you refer to as "Guvnor's validator". But I must >> admit that I was not able to find any pointer to this in the doc or >> the Guvnor source. Can you point me to the place in the Guvnor source >> where that validation actually happens? I might then be able to >> develop some ideas. > There's drools-verifier-5.4.0.Beta2-sources.jar in Expert's sources. Look at >org/drools/verifier/Consequence.drl > > The first rule is called "No action - possibly commented out". Had a look at this and I think this will be the way for me: Implement my own set of verifier rules. It still don't quite understand how I would "plug" these rules into Guvnor, but I guess I'll just have to do some source reading :-) -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Somewhat strange question: Rules without a RHS
On 05/15/2012 07:24 PM, Wolfgang Laun wrote: > Assuming you can get hold of the resulting DRL text, a simple script > might detect rules where there is nothing between "then" and "end". I have currently implemented something similar. A REST client that periodically scans the BRLs in certain Guvnor packages and fills out missing RHS. Problem is that the users try to test their broken rules faster than this script can fix them :-/ > > Otherwise, following the techniques used in the Guvnor's validator, > you can investigate the consequence text and use heuristics to > detect the bad ones. I was looking for exactly that: an option to replace or inject custom extensions to what you refer to as "Guvnor's validator". But I must admit that I was not able to find any pointer to this in the doc or the Guvnor source. Can you point me to the place in the Guvnor source where that validation actually happens? I might then be able to develop some ideas. -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Somewhat strange question: Rules without a RHS
Hi all I have an ongoing discussion with my users: They have been using several home-grown rule oriented applications for years. Almost all of these "rule engines" were built for one very specific reason, and the users have come accustomed to just specify a LHS of a rule. They never needed to specify a RHS, because the action of the rule was pre-determined by the application. So when the rule fired, it was clear what needed to be done in the application. Now want to merge all these "rule engines" onto Drools (5.4.0), and use the Guvnor BRL editor and DSLs to actually formulate them. Of course now Drools can not "know" what the RHS is supposed to be, since we have "merged" several applications. The users now need to select one of several predefined DSL statements as the RHS, but unfortunately they consistenly keep forgetting to put an RHS at all. Guvnor validates this successfully but of course the rules then fail to work. I have been thinking if there is any way in Guvnor or via some kind of Drools expert mechanism to say something like "if a rule is in packaga a.b.c, it's RHS should always be 'foo' unless specified otherwise". To be honest, I could not come up with a way to achieve this and think just need to educate my users better. But before doing that, I thought I'd use the wisdom of this group :-) -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] PermGen space error
On 02/09/2012 09:34 AM, Geoffrey De Smet wrote: > The perm gen space is a subset of the heap space. > So it doesn't make sense to put them on the same value. > > Try this instead: > -Xmx1024m -XX:MaxPermSize=512m > Or, if that fails: > -Xmx2048m -XX:MaxPermSize=1024m > Sorry to disagree Geoffrey, but PermGen is NOT a part of heap in all (Sun) JVM's that I'm aware of. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2129044/java-heap-terminology-young-old-and-permanent-generations http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/gc-tuning-5-138395.html (the picture a few pages down) So the sizes are specified separately. But having a MaxPerm of 1G and STILL see PermGen OOM is strange. The problem could be, that when using the CMS (concurrent mark sweep) GC, PermGen is not collected. I have seen cases where sooner or later OOM PermGen errors happened consistently, until we added |-XX:+CMSPermGenSweepingEnabled| -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] New Change-Set editor in Guvnor 5.4
On 12/27/2011 03:11 PM, Esteban Aliverti wrote: > Guvnor 5.4 comes with a new change-set editor that allows users to > define their custom change-sets instead of using the default layout: 1 > package -> 1 change-set. Me likes that! A lot! Exactly what I needed to allow re-use of rules/packages. Thanks, I'll give it a try later today. -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Data structures in Guvnor REST API
On 12/02/2011 06:02 AM, Jervis Liu wrote: > On 2011/12/1 19:03, Joe Ammann wrote: >> Hi >> >> On 12/01/2011 06:40 AM, Jervis Liu wrote: >>> the Asset.type is a standard property from Dublin core >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Core), though this property is >>> never used by Guvnor Asset or Package, its always empty. I will remove >>> this property from the REST API. Thanks for pointing this out. >>> >> I would not go too fast in removing it. If it is still available in >> Guvnor, IMHO it should also be available in the API. I was just >> wondering if there are any current uses for this. >> >> I might want to use this in my application :-) >> > I would not suggest you to use Asset.type to store custom information as > this field is a reserved property in Guvnor thus there is no guarantee > the information you stored will be preserved in the future. I'm perfectly aware of that, and prepared to change it in the future. Thing is that I need to store additional information. For packages, it's quite easy, I just place a specific file in that package. For Assets, I only see 2 choices currently: type or note. Pretty much everything else that the REST API offers is used for different things. Of course, the ideal solution for me would be if the API offered a generic key/value list for "other metadata". -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Guvnor "inheritance"
Hi Michael On 12/01/2011 05:48 PM, Michael Anstis wrote: > Firstly, "no" you are not missing anything :) Hm, I kind of had hoped > What you describe does not sound like inheritance: more of a fall > through of assets from a top level package to lower sub-packages. Yes, that's what I mean, and I could make up a good name, hence "inheritance" in quotes. But this fall through is exactly what I want. > > The Global Area would provide what you might be looking for - a place > where assets can be shared with other packages. I know about the Global, but this is a bit too global :-) > > We do provide for "true" rule inheritance already. Yes, and the users absolutely love this! But just to be sure: rule inheritance is only avaible in DRL rules, not in BRL rules, correct? -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Guvnor "inheritance"
Hi my users asked me to provide something like "package inheritance" in Guvnor. They would like to be able to define some artefact types (most notably DLSs, Working Sets, function definitions and extensible rules) in a "parent package", and then create "sub packages" where only the pure rule definitions live, but can use the artefacts from the "parent package". Now I realise that Guvnor/Drools packages are not really hierarchical. They may happen to have dots in their name and be displayed in a tree, but that's all. I can implement this by doing "inheritance by copying", since I provide the access to the Guvnor tree with my own Eclipse RCP application and only use the asset editors from Guvnor. But I was wondering if I'm missing some fundamental concept in Guvnor that would make this easy? I could also imagine this to be realized by extending the concept of working sets from fact types and fields to also include DSL, functions and rules. That would even be more flexible :-) -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Data structures in Guvnor REST API
Hi On 12/01/2011 06:40 AM, Jervis Liu wrote: > the Asset.type is a standard property from Dublin core > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Core), though this property is > never used by Guvnor Asset or Package, its always empty. I will remove > this property from the REST API. Thanks for pointing this out. > I would not go too fast in removing it. If it is still available in Guvnor, IMHO it should also be available in the API. I was just wondering if there are any current uses for this. I might want to use this in my application :-) -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Data structures in Guvnor REST API
Hi all I'm trying to integrate Guvnor into my application via the REST API. Little question to the Asset data structures. The doc (http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.3.0.Final/drools-guvnor-docs/html/ch09.html#d0e2282) says, that every Asset has a "type", and via AssetMetadata also a "format". When querying my Guvnor repository, I get values like "brl" or "dsl" as expected from the Asset->AssetMetadata->format. But what is Asset->type about? In all my tests it comes back always empty. -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] drools-JBPM integration
On 14.07.2011 19:43, Michael Anstis wrote: > IIRC, WAS's classloaders work in a different order to other containers. > > I might be talking a load of baloneybut I have a feeling this is the case. > > I have another feeling you can configure this to be top-down or > bottom-up or something along those lines. Might be worth a try. > > If this is all found to be complete rubbish I'll visit my doctor about > these feelings I keep getting ;) Definitely true, WAS classloaders can be ... interesting at times :-) Copying JARs into the WAS library folder often does more harm than it helps. I'd try the following: - remove all JARs you copied into WAS lib folder - deploy the WARs again and make sure you select the "PARENT LAST" classloader option during deployment - if you're still getting class not founds, post the classname (and specify the WAS version you're using) and I'll see if I can help -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Avoid evaluation of expensive LHS terms
On 23.06.2011 21:27, Michael Anstis wrote: > Have you tried salience? > Yeah, sorry forgot to mention. THis was the first thing I tried. -- CU, Joe ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] Avoid evaluation of expensive LHS terms
Stumbled over this today in a specific case, but my question is about a
general practice (I'm quite new to Drools, 5.2.0.M2 btw). I have a
knowledge session with a fair amount of facts (0.5 Mio) and mostly
simple rules. One rule has a LHS expression that I know will be
expensive to execute, in the example that I encountered this it looks like:
rule "Count facts"
when
all : Number() from accumulate (s : X(), count(s))
blacklisted : Number() from accumulate (s : X(status ==
X.BLACKLISTED), count(s))
then
end
I want to execute this rule only after other rules have already executed
(and changed the status of most of the X facts). There's quite a number
of X facts (~200'000). Most of them have their status modified during
execution of other rules. If I run the rule base without the above
rules, performance is perfect, some tens of seconds. If I activate the
rule, execution never finishes (I stop it after a few minutes, never saw
it finished).
I *THINK* (correct me if I'm wrong) what happens is that especially the
second expression of the LHS gets executes over and over again whenever
one of the facts is modified by one of the other rules. Makes sense, but
I nevertheless want to try to avoid it.
Until now I tried unsuccessfully:
- "protect" the rule with a guard fact as the first expression, which is
inserted only late in the processing
- move the rule to another ruleflow-group (or agenda-group) and activate
it only at the end of the processing
- use the rule in a second independent knowledge base and session, and
insert the facts once the first has finished
I'm perfectly aware that I could solve this specific problem of counting
facts with different techniques, but my question is more general (as the
subject says). Because I have other cases where (as a last resort) I
need to go to a database or online service to get the required
information. It seems that others have similar problems
(http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Short-circuiting-evaluations-on-LHS-td56379.html).
But in my experience, that technique ("protecting" the expensive pattern
in the LHS with a cheap one that evaluates to false until you really
need the expensive one) does not work. I get the impression that
(contrary to popular experience that a "false" value in an AND sequence
terminates the whole sequence) the drools LHS are processed differently.
Am I missing something really stupid?!
--
CU, Joe
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
