On 18 Feb 2014, at 18:38, laune [via Drools] wrote:
[snip]
>
> >
> > I ran into trouble because my various rules (from my original email)
> > wouldn't fire an alert as expected when I fed in simulated events.
> >
> > I'm curious as to why you think it's interesting that the four rules below
> > fail to meet my expectation? I suppose it's the fact that I'm a drools
> > newbie and the issue here is probably just my inexperience mapping business
> > logic into drools rules.
>
> The word is "illuminative" rather than "interesting". Take this one:
>
> $e1: Event($location: properties["location"] && ...)
> not Event(...., this after $e1)
>
> The $e1 Event is here, Time is Now. It's most certainly true that
> nothing is here after Now! - And the next one:
>
> $e1: Event($location: properties["location"] && ...)
> not Event(...., this after[0, 1m] $e1)
>
> Again, Event $e1 is here, Time is Now, and nothing is here after Now.
> The operator does not instruct the Engine to wait!
>
Yes, I had imagined something like that was the case.
My original reasoning was the following;
At the moment when the $e1 event arrives, time is Now and it is true that there
is no second event.
However, there is no way for the engine to know at Time=Now whether or not the
second event is going to arrive within the required time period (this
after[0,1m] $e1)
Surely, the engine needs to wait until (at least) Time=Now+1m before firing the
rule, at least in the second case, because it is not possible to establish the
truth or falsehood of the second criterion until 1m has past since the first
event arrived because the second event might arrive, right?
Well, that's what I thought at least!
daveor
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Help-with-event-not-found-over-window-query-tp4028129p4028190.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
