Op 19-10-11 15:00, Guilherme Kunigami schreef:
In this use case, that is probably a bad idea in my experience.
Why? Well I hope this makes any sense:
/You need to allow the optimization algorithms to break it now and
then to tunnel through a bad search space into another good search
space./
If it doesn't, don't worry.
Hmm, I think I understood it. Allowing infeasible solutions may help
to scape from local minima in the space of feasible solutions for example.
Yep :)
rule "Avoid conflicting activities"
when
Assignment($room1 : room, $act1: activity, $id : activity.id
<http://activity.id/>)
Assignment(room== $room1, room != null, $act2 : activity,
activity.id <http://activity.id/> > $id)
Conflict(act1 == $act1, act2 == $act2)
I would put Conflict first. But try it this way too and let me
know which works better ;) I don't know.
Stated differently: Instead of checking every 2 simultaneous
assignments if they are a conflict,
I would check if every 2 conflict assignments are simultaneous
(like in examinationScoreRules.drl).
Ok! I will perform some stress tests to verify which one works better.
Nice, please report your results to this mailing list. It doesn't matter
if they are worse, better or equal: it's interesting to know.
Look for "stepLimit" in the examples to see how I do very short stress
tests when adding extra constraints.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
