I thought about asking that yesterday. But thought, no, surely not ! That's OK, mistakes happen !
Good luck. -----Original Message----- From: Segal, Jeffrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [drools-user] Consequence firing Just figured it out, and it was indeed right under my nose and a bit embarrassing. I was simply not calling workingMemory.fireAllRules() after asserting my objects, but I was thrown off by the fact that the isAllowed() methods in my conditions were still being called. Based on that, I assumed rule validation was an asynchronous process that began as soon as objects are asserted into WorkingMemory. Sorry about that folks...I appreciate the help though! Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Mark Proctor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [drools-user] Consequence firing Look in the online Semantic Module documentation and read the hello world example - its not indepth, but should give you the information you need. Mark Leotis buchanan wrote: > How do you register your consequence factory in a conf file , and > where will your drools app look for this conf file. > > On 11/21/05, Dave B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Have you: >> - registered your consequence factory in a conf file? >> - checked that your consequence factory is called? >> - checked that your consequence factory returns a valid consequence? >> >> I vaguely recall having a similar problem a couple of months ago, and >> indeed remember that the solution was right under my nose -- but I >> can't recall the details right now. Will scan my code later today and >> let you know if that rings any bells. >> >> In any case, the debugger is your friend here, should be pretty easy >> to track down. >> >> Regards, >> David >> >> >> >> On 11/22/05, Segal, Jeffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I've been working on drools DSL for my particular project and have >>> overcome all of the classpath, naming convention issues, etc. that >>> can come up when using a DSL. The problem I am having is in getting >>> my consequences to fire. Here is a sample of how my rules look: >>> >>> <rule name="some rule name" salience="50"> >>> >>> <myNamespace:condition nodeName="node"> <myNamespace:aCondition >>> anAttribute="some value"/> <myNamespace:anotherCondition >>> anotherAttribute="some other value"> <myNamespace:subelement key="a >>> key" value="a value"/> </myNamespace:anotherCondition> >>> </myNamespace:condition> >>> >>> <myNamespace:consequence nodeName="node"> <myNamespace:myConsequence >>> anAttribute="a value"> <myNamespace:subelement key="a key" value="a >>> value"/> </myNamespace:myConsequence> </myNamespace:consequence> >>> >>> </rule> >>> >>> >>> When I assert objects, my conditions are firing as expected and >>> without exception. However, I'm not seeing any conditions fire, even >>> when all of the conditions are true. I.e., isAllowed() is returning >>> true for conditions "aCondition" and "anotherCondition", but the >>> invoke() method of "myConsequence" is not being called. Even when I >>> set my isAllowed() methods to always return true, my invoke() methods are never reached. >>> Xerces has no problem validating my XML against my schema, so I'm at >>> a loss as to what would be causing this. >>> >>> Maybe the solution is right under my nose...any ideas? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeff >>> >>> > >
