This has been fixed someplace on the way to 5.4.0 - it works correctly
in 5.4.0.Beta2
-W
On 12/03/2012, Wolfgang Laun wolfgang.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Using 5.3.0.Final, arbitrary facts and the rule shown below:
import org.drools.reteoo.InitialFactImpl
rule Clear when
$f: Object()
On 3/13/12 12:03 AM, Cristiano Gavião wrote:
Hi again,
Well, I already did this before. But now I've discovered that its
working when called from a file inside a guvnor package. but not
directly in the browser..
But I got a error that prevents the model (see the attached picture)
saved
Yep, draging the Reusable Subprocess from the stencil resolve the
issue... I could save and reopen the diagram properly.
I got really impressed with the improvements...
congratulations for the excellent job !!!
cheers
On 13/03/12 07:06, Tihomir Surdilovic wrote:
On 3/13/12 12:03 AM,
Sorry, I meant input :=)
I figured this was possible, as this is how a typical rule engine works.
However I am struggling with the correct syntax for doing this with a
decision table in Drools. I basically have a table in which I want to modify
a fact in the ACTION clause that had not been
Generally speaking, if a Fact has not been referenced in the CONDITION it
cannot be MODIFIED in the ACTION.
You can either:-
- Reference in the CONDITION and MODIFY in the ACTION, or
- CREATE in the ACTION
You do not need to define any constraints on a Fact you reference in the
CONDITION.
Hi there,
Kindly assist.
I am playing around with Inference and Truth maintenance
I have 2 questions.
1) When doing a logicalInsert() in the consequence of a rule - is this the
same as doing a insertLogical()? The reason I ask is that when creating rule
in Guvnor it doesnt recognize
On 13 March 2012 16:57, devan.vanree...@gmail.com devan.vanree...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi there,
Kindly assist.
I am playing around with Inference and Truth maintenance
I have 2 questions.
1) When doing a logicalInsert() in the consequence of a rule - is this the
same as doing a
Yes, you will need to perform something like this in the RHS of a rule:-
MyFact mf = new MyFact();
insertLogical( mf );
On 13 March 2012 16:23, devan.vanree...@gmail.com devan.vanree...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for your response, I picked it up from the following link
the
JBRULES-3421 created and pull request submitted with fix and tests.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Mike Melton mike.mel...@gmail.com wrote:
Drools 5.3.1.Final.
I have a use case where I am executing a BatchExecutionCommand against a
stateless session. One of the sub-commands is a
On 13 March 2012 17:23, devan.vanree...@gmail.com devan.vanree...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for your response, I picked it up from the following link
the
http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.3.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/html/ch02.html#d0e795
This will have to be corrected.
In terms of
Thanks for your help.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/logicalInsert-and-construction-of-an-inferred-fact-tp3822594p3822857.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-users
Sorry to re-activate this thread, but I was thinking and discussing a lot on
this topic (thanks Sotty and Geoffrey).
And I am still in doubt even after the explanation from Wolfgang. Until now I
think there are more interpretations on how it might be instead of explicit
explanation.
Of course
I have a question regarding eval() use. My rulebase is around ~3k rules, most
of them are auto-generated by templates, and they end up looking like this:
rule CONFIG_114
salience 0
when
client: Client()
contextProd: PortfolioProduct(prodAdded == true, productId ==
PROFESSIONAL)
You can rewrite this rule like this (if I managed to juggle the inequality
correctly):
client: Client()
contextProd: PortfolioProduct(prodAdded == true, productId
==PROFESSIONAL)
Number(qty_1: intValue* == 1* ) from accumulate(pp:
PortfolioProduct(productId in (BOX_001), prodAdded ==
Hi,
I have some trouble to figure out how to stop / start the propagation of
updates within a Then block.
Here is a snippet to represent the problem I have.
rule my-rule
when
$objects : List()
from accumulate( $entity : Entity(closed==false),
collectList($entity) )
Let the rule engine do what it does best. You are fighting against the
optimizations of the engine by trying to control the flow. You can rewrite
your rule as
rule my-rule
when
$entity : Entity( closed == false )
then
modify($entity) { setClosed(true); }
end
The rule will fire (once) for
Most of the USA went from Standard Time to Daylight Time this past weekend.
We use some of the temporal operations in our rules, mainly to do
calculations of date differences by whole days, and some of the calculations
are wrong. The ones in error involve comparing dates where one is standard
Hi Mike,
I see your point, it's very valid for the snippet rule, but can't be apply
to the real one since I need to run a function using eval().
Patrik Dufresne
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Mike Melton mike.mel...@gmail.com wrote:
Let the rule engine do what it does best. You are
Sorry - I didn't have the time earlier to fully parse the more complex
rule. The problem you're having is that the engine reevaluates the
conditions on each working memory change, and since, as you noticed, the
list has changed, the rule fires again. The no-loop attribute prevents a
rule from
I just realized that I changed my mind on implementation mid-post and
misled you a bit. You do *not* need a special implementation of Map since
you are never reasoning over it; the accumulate rule consequence decomposes
the map results into DfsSearchResult facts. So replace any references to
20 matches
Mail list logo
