[rules-dev] Decision table - Otherwise

[Greg Barton]

Oh, it's been dragging on longer than that.  I used it in OPSJ in 1999. :P

--- On Thu, 3/31/11, Michael Neale <michael.neale at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Michael Neale <michael.neale at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-dev] Decision table - Otherwise
To: "Rules Dev List" <rules-dev at lists.jboss.org>
Date: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 4:20 PM

Otherwise has been dragging on since 2006. There are many skeletons in that cave. 
I will believe it when I see it !

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis at gmail.com> wrote:

I bet Edson can't wait to refactor the parser for that ;)


On 31 March 2011 21:11, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:



  
    
  
  
    on a related note I do plan to add OTHERWISE support at a DRL level,
    just no time to do it right now. Once it's supported at a DRL level,
    you won't need to as much work on figuring out the inverse options
    etc.

    

    Mark

    On 31/03/2011 20:25, Michael Anstis wrote:
    Hi,

      

      I'm adding support for "otherwise" to (for the time being) the
      guided decision table in Guvnor.

      

      The idea being if you set a cell to represent "otherwise" the
      generated rule is the opposite of the accumulation of the other
      cells; perhaps best explained with an example:-

      

      Person( name == )

        Mark

        Kris

        Geoffrey

        <otherwise>

      
      

      This would generate:-

      

      Person(name not
        in ("Mark", "Kris", "Geoffrey")

      

      Equals is the simple example, this is my thoughts for the other
      operators we might like to support:-

      
        != becomes "in (<list of the other cells' values)"
        < becomes ">= the maximum value of the other cells'
          values
      
      

      For example:-

        

        Person ( age
          < )

        10

        20

        30

        <otherwise>

        

        Person ( age
          >= 30 )
      

      
        <= becomes "> the maximum value of the other cells'
          values
        > becomes "<= the minimum value of the other cells'
          values
        >= becomes "< the minimum value of the other cells'
          values
        "in" becomes "not in (<a list of all values contained in
          all the other cells' lists of values>)"
      
      For example:-

      
      

      
        Person ( name
          in )

        Jim, Jack

        Lisa, Jane,
          Paul

        <otherwise>

        

        Person ( name
          not in ("Jim", "Jack", "Lisa", "Jane", "Paul" ) )

        

      
      
        I'm not sure there is a simple solution for "matches" and
          "soundslike" but welcome advice, although a possibility might
          be to create a compound field constraint:-

        
      
      
        Person ( name
          soundslike )

        Fred

        Phil

        

        not Person (
          name soundslike "Fred" || soundslike "Phil" )

      
      

      

      Would this be considered the most suitable approach?

      

      Inputs and thoughts welcome.

      

      Thanks,

      

      Mike 

      

      
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

    
    

  


_______________________________________________

rules-dev mailing list

rules-dev at lists.jboss.org

https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev





_______________________________________________

rules-dev mailing list

rules-dev at lists.jboss.org

https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev





-- 
Michael D Neale
home: www.michaelneale.net
blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com




-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20110331/7c8e0956/attachment.html