Mark Proctor wrote on 14-08-2009 03:13:42:
> We'd really like to improve out OSGi friendlyness. From getting
> Drools to work perfectly as an OSGi service, to getting our build
> system to publish all the necessary bundles. But we need people in
> the commnity to help us, you know where to find
I would hesitate using "from" for accessing nested structures for performance
reasons. See the attached project:
$ java -jar target/DroolsNestedTest-1.0.jar from.drl
Time: 980ms
BAR Duplicates: 58
FOO Duplicates: 38
$ java -jar target/DroolsNestedTest-1.0.jar reference.drl
Time: 36ms
BAR Duplic
Well, you never know it performs until you try. :) See attached project.
$ java -jar target/DroolsMapTest-1.0.jar eval.drl
{bar=0}
{foo=100}
Time: 6607ms
$ java -jar target/DroolsMapTest-1.0.jar mvel.drl
{bar=0}
{foo=100}
Time: 13077ms
So eval ended up being 2x as fast, at least for thi
thanks Isilva, i will try by using this
lsilva wrote:
>
> We use a SQL like statements for our dsl. For example:
>
> DRL FORM:
> rule 'Rank accomodation name'
> salience 90
> when
> $accBase: AccomodationBase()
> not AccomodationBase( eval( $accBase instanceof AccomodationRank) )
>
André Thieme wrote:
Mark Proctor schrieb:
Map( this['c'] == 206 )
That should work, we do support MVEL syntax for maps and arrays - we
just don't suppor method calls, yet.
Hello Mark. I just tested it and it indeed works for me.
Although as I understand it, this will be compiled int
We'd really like to improve out OSGi friendlyness. From getting Drools
to work perfectly as an OSGi service, to getting our build system to
publish all the necessary bundles. But we need people in the commnity to
help us, you know where to find us if you want to help out, as we have
so much oth
We use a SQL like statements for our dsl. For example:
DRL FORM:
rule 'Rank accomodation name'
salience 90
when
$accBase: AccomodationBase()
not AccomodationBase( eval( $accBase instanceof AccomodationRank) )
$accRank: AccomodationRank( level == $accBase.level, description ==
$accB
With what have you been wrong Greg?
I understood Marks reply in such a way that the mvel dialect allows to
use Maps without eval. But this is just syntactic sugar. When compiled
or interpreted (I don't know which of those Drools will do with mvel
rules), this will get replaced with an eval under th
Mark Proctor schrieb:
> Map( this['c'] == 206 )
>
> That should work, we do support MVEL syntax for maps and arrays - we
> just don't suppor method calls, yet.
Hello Mark. I just tested it and it indeed works for me.
Although as I understand it, this will be compiled into an expression
using eva
I was wrong. :). See Mark's later email.
GreG
On Aug 13, 2009, at 17:25, André Thieme
wrote:
Greg Barton schrieb:
There's no reason why a rete based system couldn't use maps as first
class objects, but Drools is heavily oriented towards POJOS. Using
eval in the way you have is pretty much the
Greg Barton schrieb:
> There's no reason why a rete based system couldn't use maps as first
> class objects, but Drools is heavily oriented towards POJOS. Using
> eval in the way you have is pretty much the way to go.
Thanks for confirming that.
For now I know that I am doing it right by using ev
Have you made any progress on this migration. I am currently estimating the
migration path for our Excel based rules to web based decision tables. Can
you describe the steps you were required to take?
Anyone else, please feel free to comment on your Excel to Web Decision Table
migrations.
Tha
Thanks Kris
Will download from the below link and check.
Quick question, do you know when the official 5.1 release will be available
?
Kris Verlaenen wrote:
>
> The fix for this issue has been added to trunk about a month ago already
> I think, have you already tried with the 5.1.0 SNAPS
lasse.wallen...@apcc.com wrote:
> Ok, I finally got it running. I had missed an import in the excel sheet so
> I had a dependency on another bundle.
Cool!
> All this debugging has made me understand (and appreciate) the solution
> sketched earlier by Faron Dutton more clearly. However it still s
hi all, can any one help me how can convert drl to dsl for drools,let say for
the following code what will be the dsl,
rule 'Rank accomodation name'
salience 90
when
$accBase: AccomodationBase()
not AccomodationBase( eval( $accBase instanceof AccomodationRank) )
$accRank: Acc
Java pojo's nested fields is just a weak way to represent relations
between objects. If you want to exploit those properly in a rule engine,
best to use real relations.
Mark
Libor Nenadál wrote:
Mark Proctor wrote:
We can exploit cartesian products and indexing for == constraints. If
its a
hi all, can any one help me how can convert drl to dsl for drools,let say for
the following code what will be the dsl,
rule 'Rank accomodation name'
salience 90
when
$accBase: AccomodationBase()
not AccomodationBase( eval( $accBase instanceof AccomodationRank) )
$accRank: Acc
Mark Proctor wrote:
>
> We can exploit cartesian products and indexing for == constraints. If
> its a nested model we have to iterate over all possible instances. The
> other problem is if the nested model changes the engine has no idea this
> has happened, which if you are not careful can le
You can do this using the "extends" keyword in your rule.
Rule "shopping cart total exceeds 4000, give 50% discount"
when
then
end
Rule "if order between 6 to 9 pm give additional discount of 20 %" extends
"shopping cart total exceeds 4000, g
Hi Pardeep,
you cannot nest rules. You can solve the situation with 2 rules like:
rule "big amount discount"
when
Basket( total > 4000 )
discount: Discount()
then
discount.percentage = discount.percentage + 20;
end
rule "preferred time discount"
when
Clock( 6 < time < 9 )
Tobias,
I believe that this is more than a flow question. The answer depends on
another question: what is taking too much time to execute? The evaluation of
the rules in A and B (LHS) or the actual consequence execution of rules in A
and B (RHS)?
If it is LHS of the rules that is taki
Hi *,
I need to speed up the total processing time needed for the execution of
a rule flow which consists of multiple rule flow groups (e. g. A, B and
C). I'm thinking about to parallelize the execution of A and B.
+--> A --> +
Start --> split + +--> join --> C --> End
22 matches
Mail list logo
