I agree that it is bad form to introduce unnecessary nulls. I mostly did
that for the sake of simplicity in the example.
I tried out your initial proposal of how to implement this, where you put
the logic previously in my `result` segment of the `accumulate` into the
"result pattern" segment of the rule instead. This seems to have the effect
that I am going for, but I'm a little suprised that it produces different
results.
The reason I say this, is here:
$sample : SampleFact() from
accumulate( $sf : SampleFact(),
init( SampleFact temp = null;
),
action( temp = ((null == temp)
|| ($sf.version >
temp.version)) ? $sf : temp; ),
result( ((null != temp) &&
(temp.value < 10)) ?
temp : null; ))
When a SampleFact is matched in the accumulate that has the highest version,
but does not have a value < 10, the `result` should
produce the value null, which I'd not expect to match the "result pattern"
of SampleFact().
So basically, I would have expected this to have the same effect as putting
the restricitons in the result pattern segment itself, as your example
showed me (i.e. SampleFact( value < 10 ) ).
Going with Davide's previous reply;
the difference seems to be that if the `result` produces null, then it does
not match SampleFact(), and so *does not* override previous accumulate
activations that did match.
However, when `result` produces a SampleFact that does not match SampleFact(
value < 10), it *does* override previous activations from the accumulate.
So I feel that there is a gap in my understanding of what is happening here
at this point.
I appreciate all the helpful feedback on this topic!
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Unexpected-behavior-of-accumulate-and-insertLogical-when-the-result-goes-from-matching-a-constraint-g-tp4026507p4026518.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
