Michael Neale michael.neale at gmail.com writes:
can you try changing the name of the funciton (and also make it a valid
function).
On 5/4/06, Alberto Siena siena at itc.it wrote:
Mark Proctor mproctor at codehaus.org writes:
Strings are immutable the following would not work
100 hundred rules. each with a different salience, ouch - that sounds
very procedural.
Karim wrote:
Hi Michael, Drools users,
I've one hundred rules in my rulebase.
Each rules have a different salience (they're all ordered between them ).
Each rule can set the value of the category and exclude
Karim,
It would be good to have a simple self contained sample to run and
make tests and also to look at your DSL to know what these rules
translates to. Some tips I can give you in this matter:
1. If your category conditions does not overlap each other, you must not
use salience. The
I just discovered that there's a groovy plugin for idea that uses antlr as
the scanner and parser, so I'm hoping I can use that as a model for drl
files. Not sure how I'll do the dsl though *shiver*.
On Wed, 03 May 2006 21:07:43 -0400, Michael Neale
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes eclipse
How can I write a rule like this if an object inherits methods from a
super class?
I have a class hierarchy like this: A Company object and a Person
object both inherits methods from an abstract parent object.
And the Company object has a getSupervisor() method which returns a
Person object.
I think you'd have to use predicate expressions:
when
Company($s : supervisor - ($s.getAge() 25)) || Company($s : supervisor
- ($s.getAge() 67))
then ...
$s : supervisor binds the supervisor bean property of Company to the
variable $s, which you then use in the - () construct, where you
I was wondering what the reasoning was behind DRLs requiring syntax like
this:
Person(sex == f, age == 60) ||
Person(sex == f, age == 70) ||
Person(sex == f, age == 80)
instead of like this:
Person(sex == f, age == 60 || age == 70 || age == 80)
or even like this:
Person(sex == f, age IN ( 60,
Michael Neale wrote:
not sure, that should work.. .there are tests for interfaces specifically.
Need more information.
On 5/4/06, Christopher G. Stach II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I'm writing my rules, it looks like I can't use interfaces in the
``when'' clause. The implementation
in 3.1 we aim to allow age == 60 || age == 70 || age == 80
However the functionality will be different compared to condition 'or'.
The first will create sub rules for all logical outcomes. The above
notation creates a single rule and embeds that or logic in a an alpha
node. I guess the
I'm sorry Mark I don't understand what you wrote.
What are you referring to when you write 'the first', 'the second'?
-Original Message-
From: Mark Proctor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:11 PM
To: user@drools.codehaus.org
Subject: Re: [drools-user] DRL design
yes, that was a challenge... basically had to reparse things when a DSL
expression is happened upon, and track line numbers etc... took a while.
What I am thinking is to have the DSL step as a nested parser using simple
rules - this means it can very quickly convert the rules into the native one
Sorry wasn't able to reproduce, the class you provided looks slightly
mangled - there is no getSat method is the error I get.
On 5/4/06, Alberto Siena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Neale michael.neale at gmail.com writes:
can you try changing the name of the funciton (and also make it
perhaps you can provide your rules and your interfaces? If the rules refer
to the interfaces, you will need to import them as well into the rule.
Also, make sure that the interfaces are available on the classpath. But if
you can provide an example, it will save time trying to emulate from your
13 matches
Mail list logo
