That's a great idea, Greg. Thanks for suggesting it. I think, however, I've figured out a solution for us that will work without multiple contexts or the idea of more than one agenda group to a rule.
I did end up writing my own class for a rule timer that ended up being FAR more flexible and powerful than the built-in RTworks concept of timers you could attach to rules. Isn't OO and Java wonderful? :) -A -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Barton Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 12:54 PM To: Rules Users List Subject: RE: [rules-users] More than one agenda group for a rule? You could do the same thing by structuring your rules in a certain way. Have an object of that defines the current context. i.e. class Context { String name; } The each rule matches on whether a given Context is asserted in working memory. when exists Context(name == "foo") ... then ... end This can be as flexible as you please: when exists Context(name matches ".*startup.*") ... then ... end --- On Tue, 9/2/08, Bagwell, Allen F <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Bagwell, Allen F <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [rules-users] More than one agenda group for a rule? > To: "Rules Users List" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 1:20 PM Our rule engine software > made by Talarian Corporation as part of their RTworks suite. > > The company was bought out by TIBCO several years ago, and the > software is no longer supported. They essentially consigned it to the > dust bin. And with a massive upgrade to our system, we had to find a > rule engine alternative. > > The old RTworks rule engine concept of an AgendaGroup was called a > "Context". You could assign a rule to as many contexts as you wanted. > You just listed their names, separated by semi-colons, following the > context keyword. > > There are always trade-offs when switching, but Drools has many more > features we could only wish were present in the old software. > > -A > > ________________________________ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:06 PM > To: Rules Users List > Subject: Re: [rules-users] More than one agenda group for a rule? > > Bagwell, Allen F wrote: > > That's not so welcome news. Our old rule engine software had this > ability. We'll find a work-around, but is this being considered in a > later update to Drools? My thought is that rule should be like > method: you really should only need to write it once. > > > no plans to add this, especially as ruleflow is the preferred way to > orchestration rules so that's where our focus is these days. Which is > your old rule engine that supported this? I don't believe jess or > clips allow a rule to live in multiple modules - which is what > AgendaGroups is based on. > > Mark > > -A > > > -----Original Message----- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > boss.org> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Mark Proctor > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:07 PM > To: Rules Users List > Subject: Re: [rules-users] More than one agenda group for a rule? > > Bagwell, Allen F wrote: > > > I was wondering (hoping) that there is a way to put a rule into more > than one agenda group? > > I've tried writing: > > rule "example" > agenda-group "process x stuff" > agenda-group "process y stuff" > when > (blah, blah, blah) > then > (blah, blah, blah) > end > > But while the compiler has no problems with this it really only > includes the rule in the last agenda-group listed. > > > nope, not possible. > > > Thanks, > Allen > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
