I think erich.oliphant wrote:
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> Great thanks!
> 
> And yes, these rules are just simple audits so they don't do any asserting.
> 
> Quick follow up, how does this work with back-chaining.  We don't have any at
> the moment in this set of rules but may soon.  Would i be able to do the same
> thing for a backward reactive rule ?


You'd be able to see the goal-satisfying rules (the ones with need-X
patterns) activated, if that's what you're asking, yes.


> 
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 10:21:04 -0700 (PDT), ejfried wrote
> > I think erich.oliphant wrote:
> > [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > > Hi,
> > > I have an interesting situation.  I've a set of business rules we 
> > > developed
> > > that were currently using 'normally'.  Defrules, toss in 
> > > facts/definstances
> > > and run.  These rules update some domain objects when they fire.
> > > 
> > > We now have a situation where we need to use a subset of the same rules 
> > > in a
> > > different context.  1) the caller only needs to know if a rule fired, so
> > > different RHS behavior 2) the caller needs to be able to specify which 
> > > rules
> > > should be evaluated.  So currently the .clp has say rule1 - rule20.  In 
> > > this
> > > scenario the caller needs to add some facts, and only have say rule2 and 
> > > rule7
> > > evaluated against the facts, and the caller only needs to know if their 
> > > LHS'
> > > matched at all, not have the RHS action take place.
> > > 
> > > Any ideas?  Since this seems to of course fly in the face of the standard
> > > usage pattern, I am having some difficulty.
> > 
> > Since you don't want the rules to fire, one thing you can do is just
> > call Rete.listActivations() and iterate  over all the Activation
> > objects, looking at each one to find out if the rules of interest are
> > active. If you're using multiple modules, then you'll need to check
> > each module separately.
> > 
> > Now, this assumes there are no multi-step operations -- i.e., it's 
> > not the case that a rule fires, and asserts a fact, which activates 
> > another rule, and you're interested in that second rule. If that's 
> > the case, then the premise about the rules not firing is flawed.
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Ernest Friedman-Hill  
> > Advanced Software Research          Phone: (925) 294-2154
> > Sandia National Labs                FAX:   (925) 294-2234
> > PO Box 969, MS 9012                 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Livermore, CA 94550         http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list
> > 
> > (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list
> (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 



---------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Friedman-Hill  
Advanced Software Research          Phone: (925) 294-2154
Sandia National Labs                FAX:   (925) 294-2234
PO Box 969, MS 9012                 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Livermore, CA 94550         http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list
(use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to