I am probably still misunderstanding, but it seems that the effective
and expires dates are constants that can be used in the left hand side
of the rules:
rule "Commission Calculation 07-08"
when
$agent: Agent( promotedDate >= "01-Apr-2007",
promotedDate <= "30-Mar-2008")
$sale: Sale( agent = $agent, $amount: amount )
....
then
$agent.addCommission( $sale, $amount, .09); // .09 is
the commission rate for this rule
....
end
Now for the next financial year we define a new rule as follows
rule "Commission Calculation 08-09"
when
$agent: Agent( promotedDate >= "01-Apr-2008",
promotedDate <= "30-Mar-2009")
$sale: Sale( agent = $agent, $amount: amount )
....
then
$agent.addCommission( $sale, $amount, .06); // .06 is
the commission rate for this rule
end
Nimesh Muley's message received 3/6/2008 1:00 AM:
I was not able to portray the right picture L. Here's another shot at
clarifying my situation.
Let's say we have a commission rule as follows
rule "Commission Calculation *07-08*"
*date-effective "01-Apr-2007"*
*date-expires "30-Mar-2008"*
when
....
then
....
end
Now for the next financial year we define a new rule as follows
rule "Commission Calculation *08-09*"
*date-effective "01-Apr-2008"*
*date-expires "30-Mar-2009"*
when
....
then
....
end
Now let's say /_today's date is 15^th April 2008_/. An agent is
promoted today with /_effective date as 1^st March 2008_/. Hence his
commission needs to be recalculated as per the "Commission Calculation
*07-08*" rule and *_not_* the effective rule as on today i.e.
"Commission Calculation *08-09*". For rest of the agents commission
would be calculated based on the rule effective today i.e. 15^th April
2008. Hence a need to pass a date during execution of rule based on
which the right rule would be chosen.
Basically there is no legacy code as part of my example but a need to
fire the rules that are effective on a date other than the system date
always.
I have seen similar functionality in other rules engines too. Can this
be done in JBoss Rules? If yes, is TimeMachine the right way of doing it?
Regards,
- Nimesh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Scott Reed
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:40 PM
*To:* Rules Users List
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Setting date during execution of rules.
As I understand it, the problem is that you have legacy code that uses
the system date in it's calculations and you cannot fix that so it
will take a date parameter, right? If so, then my recommendation is to
fix the legacy software if possible since messing with the system date
gives me the willies. If you can't fix it, then anything that can be
called from Java to set the system date
(e.g.Runtime.exec(...).waitfor()?) should be callable from the 'then'
part of a rule. Make that call, call your legacy code, then make the
call to set the date back. But that is so ugly, please don't tell
anyone I had anything to do with it.
Nimesh Muley's message received 3/5/2008 1:25 AM:
Hi,
Is there a way to set the date while executing the rules? The
effective dates would be checked against this date instead of today's
date. By default the effective dates would be checked with System
date. But in some cases we would need to execute the rules in a
'back-dated' mode.
Use case.
Let's say in insurance industry there are commission calculation rules
for an agent. On these rules the effective dates are appropriate (as
per their needs). Now when an agent is promoted and his/her promotion
date is couple of months back then we would want to calculate the
commission once again with the date as 2 months back.
The nearest I could see is TimeMachine, as this is being used during
execution of rules. Although I could not find a way to set the
TimeMachine in release 4.0.4.
Has anyone tried something like this before?
Regards,
- Nimesh
"The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time, the last 10% takes
the other 90% of the time" - Murphy's Law
While so very true, this is not Murphy's Law, which I think of as
"Whatever can go wrong, probably will." (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law)
Your rule here is called the 90-90 rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule
MASTEK LTD.
Making a valuable difference
Mastek in NASSCOM's 'India Top 20' Software Service Exporters List.
In the US, we're called MAJESCOMASTEK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not that of
Mastek Limited, unless specifically indicated to that effect. Mastek Limited
does not accept any responsibility or liability for it. This e-mail and
attachments (if any) transmitted with it are confidential and/or privileged and
solely for the use of the intended person or entity to which it is addressed.
Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any
action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. This e-mail and its attachments have been
scanned for the presence of computer viruses. It is the responsibility of the
recipient to run the virus check on e-mails and attachments before opening
them. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly delete this e-mail from
desktop and server.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
