Oh, it's been dragging on longer than that. I used it in OPSJ in 1999. :P
--- On Thu, 3/31/11, Michael Neale <michael.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Michael Neale <michael.ne...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-dev] Decision table - Otherwise
To: "Rules Dev List" <rules-dev@lists.jboss.org>
Date: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 4:20 PM
Otherwise has been dragging on since 2006. There are many skeletons in that
cave.
I will believe it when I see it !
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Michael Anstis <michael.ans...@gmail.com> wrote:
I bet Edson can't wait to refactor the parser for that ;)
On 31 March 2011 21:11, Mark Proctor <mproc...@codehaus.org> wrote:
on a related note I do plan to add OTHERWISE support at a DRL level,
just no time to do it right now. Once it's supported at a DRL level,
you won't need to as much work on figuring out the inverse options
etc.
Mark
On 31/03/2011 20:25, Michael Anstis wrote:
Hi,
I'm adding support for "otherwise" to (for the time being) the
guided decision table in Guvnor.
The idea being if you set a cell to represent "otherwise" the
generated rule is the opposite of the accumulation of the other
cells; perhaps best explained with an example:-
Person( name == )
Mark
Kris
Geoffrey
<otherwise>
This would generate:-
Person(name not
in ("Mark", "Kris", "Geoffrey")
Equals is the simple example, this is my thoughts for the other
operators we might like to support:-
!= becomes "in (<list of the other cells' values)"
< becomes ">= the maximum value of the other cells'
values
For example:-
Person ( age
< )
10
20
30
<otherwise>
Person ( age
>= 30 )
<= becomes "> the maximum value of the other cells'
values
> becomes "<= the minimum value of the other cells'
values
>= becomes "< the minimum value of the other cells'
values
"in" becomes "not in (<a list of all values contained in
all the other cells' lists of values>)"
For example:-
Person ( name
in )
Jim, Jack
Lisa, Jane,
Paul
<otherwise>
Person ( name
not in ("Jim", "Jack", "Lisa", "Jane", "Paul" ) )
I'm not sure there is a simple solution for "matches" and
"soundslike" but welcome advice, although a possibility might
be to create a compound field constraint:-
Person ( name
soundslike )
Fred
Phil
not Person (
name soundslike "Fred" || soundslike "Phil" )
Would this be considered the most suitable approach?
Inputs and thoughts welcome.
Thanks,
Mike
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
--
Michael D Neale
home: www.michaelneale.net
blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
