Bug is fixed and commited to trunk. Will be released on MR4.
[]s
Edson
2007/7/4, Felipe Piccolini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Edson,
I tried what you said, but it is not the same... cant get the expected
result.
With agenda-group the can control de flow, but outside the rules
(auto-focus didnt work well),
and before that I prefer to use rule-flow-group (and use the GUI).
What Im trying to get is a set of rules that dont depend on flows or
sequences to work together, because
this set of rules can be large and I dont want the business user have to
check all rules to know how to write
the next rule... they must be writen in an independent way, but work
together...
lock-on-active didnt work either to get that result, because when I use it
stops activations, so the update(fact) actually
has no effect on other rules... I need to put
wm.setFocus("group1");wm.setFocus("group2");..etc.
at the java code...
I dont want to do that...
Maybe you can help me...
an example will be this...(pseudo code)
rule "base vacation days"
when
e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 1)
then
e.setVacationDays(10);
update(e);
end
rule "seniors extra vacation days"
when
e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 4, vd: vacationDays)
then
e.setVacationDays(vd+2);
update(e);
end
rule "old-employee extra vacation days"
when
e: Employee( yearsInCompany > 10, vd: vacationDays)
then
e.setVacationDays(vd+4);
update(e);
end
....and so on....
So I need the business ppl write this rules without knowing the rest of
the rules... I think this is
the idea of having a rule-system...
Thanks.
On 03-07-2007, at 16:40, Edson Tirelli wrote:
Felipe,
Thanks. I'm working on it.
BTW, I forgot to mention, what you are doing to control rules is a not
a good way to do it. You should try agenda-group+lock-on-active rule
attributes instead.
Look at the conway's game of life as an example, and maybe help us
document the feature... :)
[]s
Edson
2007/7/3, Felipe Piccolini < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Edson,
>
> Thanks for the reply... it is nasty...
>
> Jira created...
> http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-966
>
> Thanks
>
> PD: duplicated email because I forgot to cut the
> huge-company-signature... :)
>
> On 03-07-2007, at 14:18, Edson Tirelli wrote:
>
>
> Felipe,
>
> Ok, this is a nasty damn bug. :(
>
> I'm working on a solution for it right now. May I ask you please to
> open a JIRA for it and attach your code bellow?
>
> Thank you,
> Edson
>
> 2007/7/3, Felipe Piccolini < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > I know I already asked this in a previous email, but no answer and
> > diferent subject... so I'll ask again
> >
> > I have an issue using update in 2 rules that update the same object...
> > a loop is created even when I try to
> > avoid the loop adding an extra condition to each rule... Im inserting
> > an ArrayList as a fact too, so I can check
> > the extra condition...
> >
> > Can anyone tell me how to fix this?
> >
> > Consider this:
> > //-------RULES-----------------------------
> > package cl.bluesoft.test
> >
> > #list any import classes here.
> > import java.util.List
> > import java.util.ArrayList
> >
> > import cl.bluesoft.test.rules.Fact
> >
> > #declare any global variables here
> >
> > rule "test update A"
> > salience 699
> > no-loop
> > when
> > $f : Fact($n: number > 0)
> > $list: ArrayList( this excludes "key1" )
> > then
> > System.out.println( "A-fact number1:"+$f.getNumber()+ " list 1:"
> > +$list);
> > $list.add( "key1" );
> > $f.setNumber($n + 1);
> > update ($f);
> > update ($list);
> > System.out.println("A-fact number2:" +$f.getNumber()+" list 2:"
> > +$list);
> > end
> >
> >
> > rule "test update B"
> > salience 699
> > no-loop
> > when
> > $f : Fact($n: number > 1)
> > $list: ArrayList( this excludes "key2" )
> > then
> > System.out.println( "B-fact number1:" +$f.getNumber()+" list 1:"
> > +$list);
> > $list.add("key2" );
> > $f.setNumber($n + 1);
> > update ($f);
> > update ($list);
> > System.out.println("B-fact number2:" +$f.getNumber()+ " list 2:"
> > +$list);
> > end
> >
> > //-------FACT-----------------------------
> > public class Fact implements Serializable {
> > private static final long serialVersionUID = 331627137981862975L;
> >
> > private int number;
> >
> > public Fact(int number){
> > this.number = number;
> > }
> >
> > public Fact(){
> > this(0);
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > * @return the number
> > */
> > public int getNumber() {
> > return number;
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > * @param number the number to set
> > */
> > public void setNumber(int number) {
> > this.number = number;
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > //------TEST---------
> > public class TestUpdateFact implements Serializable {
> >
> > private static final long serialVersionUID = -574789596641083743L;
> >
> > /**
> > * @param args
> > */
> > public static void main(String[] args) {
> > RuleBase ruleBase = RuleBaseFactory.newRuleBase();
> > Package pkg = builder.getPackage();
> > ....
> > WorkingMemory session = ruleBase.getStatefulSession();
> > ...etc etc...
> >
> > List list = new ArrayList();
> >
> > Fact fact1 = new Fact(1);
> >
> > session.fireAllRules();
> >
> > ....etc, etc...
> >
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > //--------OUTPUT------------
> > A-fact number1:1 list 1:[]
> > A-fact number2:2 list 2:[key1]
> > B-fact number1:2 list 1:[key1]
> > B-fact number2:3 list 2:[key1, key2]
> > A-fact number1:3 list 1:[key1, key2]
> > A-fact number2:4 list 2:[key1, key2, key1]
> > B-fact number1:4 list 1:[key1, key2, key1]
> > B-fact number2:5 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2]
> > A-fact number1:5 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2]
> > A-fact number2:6 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
> > B-fact number1:6 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
> > B-fact number2:7 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2]
> > A-fact number1:7 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2]
> > A-fact number2:8 list 2:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
> > B-fact number1:8 list 1:[key1, key2, key1, key2, key1, key2, key1]
> >
> > .... for ever.....
> >
> > So I have a loop... only when I use update and both rules...
> > condition about the
> > list not containing "key1" and "key2" seems not properly chequed... I
> > dont know...
> >
> > Can somebody help me? Am I missing something here?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > * Felipe Piccolini M.*
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> Office: +55 11 3529-6000
> Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> * Felipe Piccolini M.*
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
Atentamente,
______________________
*Felipe Piccolini Marfull*
Jefe de Proyectos
Agustina 1141 Piso 8-B
Santiago
Fono +(56 2) 68830837
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
