I'm using https://github.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator-bazel and I have a common schema that is referenced by multiple other openapi targets throughout our codebase. To reference members of the common schema I'm using $refs like $refs: '../common/schema.yaml#/my/common/object, but this only works for consuming targets that are consistently structured.
I have some other targets in my code that can't reference in that way, so my question is - how can I reference these files at a consistent location relative to the consuming files? Can they be copied into the target or mounted at a specific location?
Related
We have the need to create and persist rules at runtime. The goal is to create the rules, persist them and then reload them at a later point in time. Using bits and pieces of code cobbled together from drools unit tests, I can successfully create rules from DRL strings and then persist them to a kjar. And using the new KieBuilder.buildAll overload, the kjar (presumably) is built using the new executable model. All of that seems to work.
But what I really want to do is eliminate the DRL strings entirely and create my rules at runtime using the flow or pattern DSL. Again, using example code, I can create those rules at runtime, and execute them in a session. What I can’t seem to do is actually persist them as a kjar (or any other form that I can devise). It seems that the end result of building a rule using flow or pattern DSL is a KieBase. And there seems to be no way to serialize or persist a KieBase. At some point in the process, I need to be able to getBytes() in order to persist the KieBase.
For example, I can create the KieBase like this:
Rule rule = getRule();
ModelImpl model = new ModelImpl().addRule( rule );
KieBase kieBase = KieBaseBuilder.createKieBaseFromModel( model );
But I then need to be able to persist that newly created kieBase so it can be reloaded later. And there doesn't seem to be a workable way to do that.
Any suggestions? I’m using 7.7.0 for my testing.
UPDATE 2018-07-23
Let me clarify my original question with additional information. There are really two use cases where I’d like to use the new executable model to author rules in Java: 1) at design time; 2) at run time. Each use case has slightly different requirements, and so far I’ve been unsuccessful in getting either one to work completely.
For the 1st use case, at design time I need the ability to write rules in Java (using the new pattern DSL) and then save those rules to a kjar. Once there, they can be loaded into a KieServer instance and executed. Purportedly the Kie Maven Plugin can do this, and I’ve attempted to follow the instructions given in the drools doc (for example section 2.2.1.4 of the 7.8.0 doc). But those instructions appear to be incomplete, and there just aren’t any examples of how to accomplish this. What file or files need to be added to the resources\META-INF folder to identify the rules? How are the rules actually exposed in the Java code? Do they need to be in a particular type of class? Are the rules returned from public methods? How are those methods identified as having rules? Are any Java annotations needed to make this work?
All of those questions would be answered for me if there was just one simple end-to-end example that demonstrated how to author a rule in Java, AND create the kjar containing that rule.
For the 2nd use case (actually the more important of the two for me), I need the ability to dynamically create rules at runtime. Based on configuration data within our application, multiple rules need to be programmatically created and ultimately loaded into a KieServer instance. My assumption was that the process would be similar to use case #1 where a kjar could be programmatically created and then loaded into the KieServer. And remember that in this case, the Maven Plugin isn’t in the picture since this is all being done at runtime, not design time. Using the examples for the executable model (primarily the unit tests), I can author the rules in Java, and I can execute them. But I’ve found no way to actually build a kjar from them, or to directly load them into a KieServer.
To execute the rules, they have to be in a specific Java file and the kjar needs to have a file into the META-INF folder stating where the rules actually are.
Take a look at what's the maven plugin doing here
https://github.com/kiegroup/droolsjbpm-integration/blob/master/kie-maven-plugin/src/main/java/org/kie/maven/plugin/GenerateModelMojo.java#L165
There will be probably an easier way in the future, but I can't tell you when.
Thank you for using the bleeding edge features, and good luck with that.
I was under the impression that if you use a configuration reference set to you main model and referenced subsystems, all will be affected. However, it is breaking my code generation advisor checks. This is the image I am getting:
Is this normal? I thought it should work as usual as the individual settings. Is it because it cannot distinguish between a config reference or a single config file?
The way I have propagated the config reference to all the models is by opening Model Explorer > Reference > Propagate to Referenced Models.
I'm new to the Entity Framework. I've created a model-first schema in Visual Studio 2012 with EF5, but I'm having trouble getting the generated code to build. One of my entities ("Test") has the same name as the model (edmx) and the project (csproj) files, so it conflicts with the namespace (Test is a namespace but is used like a type). So I decided to change the namespace by setting a "Custom Tool Namespace" for the .tt files. This worked, but then I found that the "Test" entity's generated .cs file was entirely empty (other entities were generating properly), so I had build errors where other entities reference "Test". Renaming the entity results in a properly generated class, and therefore a building project, but I really want to use the original name.
I will probably end up scratching the project and starting over, ensuring to choose unique names for the project, the model, and the entity. But I'd rather know how to fix this if possible in case I run into something similar when the project is further along and it's not so easy to start over.
you can use use an alias on the Using Directive, e.g. using Project = PC.MyCompany.Project; to differentiate between namespaces. see MSDN
We are developing a CMS based on JCR/Sling/JSP/Felix/etc.
What I found so far is using Nodes are very straight forward and flexible. But my concern is over time it could become too hard to maintain and manage.
So, is it wise to invest in using a OCM? Would it be just an extra layer of complexity? What's the real benefit in OCM if there's any? Or it's better for us to stick to Nodes instead?
And lastly, is Jackrabbit OCM the best option for us if we are to go down that path?
Thank you.
In my personal experience I can say it severly depends on your situation if OCM is a useful tool for your project or not.
The real problem in using OCM (in my personal experience) is when the definition of a class used in existing persisted data (as objects) in the repository has changed. For example: you found it necessary to change some members and methods of a class to match with functionality changes. By this I mean that the class definition of the persisted data object in the repository no longer matches the definition of actual class. When a persisted data is saved to the jcr repository it is usually saved in a format that java understands in terms of serialization. Which means that when something changes to the definition of the used class, the saved data in the repository can no longer be correctly interpreted by java. This issue tends to lead to complex deployment where you need to convert old persisted data objects to the new definition and save them again in the repository to make sure you can still use "old" but still required persisted data.
What does work (in my opinion) is using a framework that allows to map nodes and node properties to java objects directly (for example by using annotations) and the other way around (persist a java object to the repository as a JCR node where the java member fields are actual node properties). This way you stick to the data representation of jcr (nodes with properties) and can still map them to the members of a java class.
I've used a framework like this in a cms called AEM (of Adobe) before, although I must mention this is in a OSGI context (but the prinicipe still stands). The used framework basically allowed maximum flexibility and persists the java object as a JCR node and the other way around. Because it mapped directly to the jcr definition, code changes in the class and members ment just changing annotations, and old persisted data was still usuable without much effort.
I have some documents and an ontology for some concepts. Are there any frameworks that automatically extracts those concepts from the given documents and creates triples? The ontology must contain special properties?
I found UIMA, but as far as I understood with UIMA I can do only something like this:
create some dictionaries which keep associations with the ontology
use this dictionary with ConceptMapper
write a CAS consumer that creates the triples and persists them -
I don't like this approach because I have to keep in sync the concepts from the ontology and the dictionary.
Can be UIMA used differently, or are there any advanced frameworks that can use directly my ontology with lets say some custom properties as input and based on it annotate the documents?
I want to use ontologies as domain model because I want to create further a knowledge base and ontologies seem more flexible than for example relational model.
Thanks.
After spending more time searching on Google I found GATE and more specifically OntoRoot Gazetter and Large KB Gazetteer.
OntoRoot Gazetteer is a type of a dynamically created gazetteer that is, in combination with few other generic GATE resources, capable of producing ontology-based annotations over the given content with regards to the given ontology. This gazetteer is a part of ‘Gazetteer_Ontology_Based’ plugin that has been developed as a part of the TAO project.
I didn't test them but these ones seem good solution candidates for my problem.