[rules-users] How to generate rules from decision tables where LHS has no field constraints
Hello, Maybe I have overlooked something, but I couldn't find a way to generate a simple rule from an excel decision table, where the left hand side contains no field constraints? i.e. rule do we have cheese WHEN cheese: Cheese() THEN RHS End Is there a way to achieve this? Thanks in advance, Martin ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Rules Repository and Rule Modeller
yeah, very much so. Hopefully have a demo of it in M2 or M3. I have been meaning to update the blog with the latest on package management, but haven't found time, I will do ASAP. On 2/15/07, Anstis, Michael (M.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Just a note to enquire as to the status of the captioned? Have they progressed towards release since * http://markproctor.blogspot.com/2007/01/relocation-relocation-repository.html *http://markproctor.blogspot.com/2007/01/relocation-relocation-repository.html ? With kind regards, Michael Anstis --- ***COSMO(S)* ( Trafford House (Int) 8 718 2239 ( Trafford House (Ext) +44 (0)1268 702239 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ford Motor Company Ltd. Registered in England: No. 235446 Registered Office: Eagle Way BRENTWOOD Essex CM13 3BW ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] DROOLS 3.1M new syntax Decision Tables
it should - as it just generates rules, it doesn't interpret them when processing the DTs. On 2/15/07, Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I wonder if new syntax (specifically – 'accumulate' keyword) works correctly with Decision Tables? Can the new keywords be used in 'Condition' and 'Action' parts of the rule? Thanks, Vlad ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] How to generate rules from decision tables where LHS has no field constraints
you should be able to do that - just leave the constraint cells empty, or put some comment in them. On 2/14/07, Martin Weidner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Maybe I have overlooked something, but I couldn't find a way to generate a simple rule from an excel decision table, where the left hand side contains no field constraints? i.e. rule do we have cheese WHEN cheese: Cheese() THEN RHS End Is there a way to achieve this? Thanks in advance, Martin ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Short-circuit rules by group?!
activation-group may be what you are looking for. For things in the one activation group, only one rule is guaranteed to fire. eg: activation-group NIKE its an attribute like no-loop etc. On 2/14/07, jdepaul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have several rules defined in groups by Customer, so I have number of rules for Walmart, some rules for NIKE, more rules for SomeCustomer... When one of the rules matches for a given customer I need to send an event notification. I need to make sure that I send only ONE event notification per Customer (regardless of how many rules were matched), thus after finding the very first match in the Walmart group, I'd like to activate a rule, and then short-circuit and Skip to the next group of rules for NIKE - to see if any of the matches are found in the next group. I've implemented this functionality using a Match object, which I assert into WorkingMemory whenever I find a match for customer, then all my rules check for absence of Match for given customer... This works, but I wonder if there is a better way to do it - using Agenda Groups, maybe - once I find ONE match for Walmart, skip to the next Agenda Group?! Could someone comment on this? THanks, James -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Short-circuit-rules-by-group-%21-tf3222142.html#a8949165 Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Focus before assertion - for pattern matching
I am pretty sure that all rules in all agenda groups run pattern matching and only those in the current agenda-group execute (at least that is the default behaviour). You can see this by using the audit logging feature. cheers Steve On 2/15/07, Michael Neale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: not quite sure what you are asking, but I think the answer is yes, or it *should* be yes and there is a current limitation. On 2/14/07, Nirmal.R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Can i set the focus to a particular agenda group where in the engine tries to match the asserted object only to those set of rules Thank you Nirmal -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Focus-before-assertion---for-pattern-matching-tf3227311.html#a8965077 Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users -- Steven Williams Supervising Consultant Object Consulting Office: 8615 4500 Mob: 0439 898 668 Fax: 8615 4501 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.objectconsulting.com.au consulting | development | training | support our experience makes the difference ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
