glad i could help. _ miguel
2010/5/6 <[email protected]> > Actually, in the light of day, I see why it behaved as it did. It doesn’t > seem to be caused by the AccountHolder as such, but more the Employment > object – if there are two of them, one with an accountholder and > BusinessName that met the criteria, and one without, then the rule will fire > whether the not is used or not, just on different instances of Employment. > > > > Thanks for triggering the thought process, Miguel. > > > > *Tom Murphy* > *Business Process Consultant > Wells Fargo HCFG - CORE Deal Decisioning Platform > 800 S. Jordan Creek Parkway | West Des Moines, IA 50266 > MAC: **X2301-01B** > **Office: **515 324 4853** | **Mobile: 515 423 4334** > **This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If > you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, > you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message > or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, > please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this > message. Thank you for your cooperation.* > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *miguel machado > *Sent:* Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:19 AM > *To:* Rules Users List > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Bug in "not" ??? > > > > This is not entirely true: you may have different objects in memory in such > a way that both fires rule. In this case, if you had two (or more!) > AccountHolders for the same Employment, each of those having different > BusinessName's associated, both rules (with and without the 'not') would > fire. > > > > Does that make sense? > > _ miguel > > > > > > > > 2010/5/5 <[email protected]> > > The following rule fires both when the “not” is there, and also if the > “not” is commented out. Clearly, both cannot be true, so there is something > wrong somewhere. > > > > > -- > "To understand what is recursion you must first understand recursion" > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > -- "To understand what is recursion you must first understand recursion"
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
