[rules-users] Re: Decision Tables: Probelm with sequence=true

[Mark Proctor]

sequence=true which sets an incremental, per row, salience, is not funny 
and should do what you want. If you can't get it to work create a 
minimal self contained project and attach to a jira with the bug you 
think you have found.

1) see activation-group
2) isn't that what sequence=true does now?
3) is called complexity, this is not part of the default conflict 
resolver, so you'll have to make a custom one if you want this. There is 
a ComplexityConflictResolver that can be used as part of the 
CompositeConflictResolver.

Mark
Arjun Dhar wrote:
> Mark Proctor <mproctor <at> codehaus.org> writes:
>
>   
>> I just looked at the decision-table implementation. The sequential
>> option there is different from rulebase sequential mode, my mistake
>> sorry. sequential the option just sets a salience value on each row,
>> based on row number. So I see no reason why this shouldn't work.
>> Mark
>>     
>
> Hi Mark,
>  I sequenced the rolws in reverse order (lowermost row lowest priority); and it 
> did not fire the rules twice. Sequence in decision table is definitely doing 
> somethingf funny.
>
> Ok, I'll try and write my own Conflict Resolution strategy so that I'm sure of 
> a predictable result. I have some custom requirements:
>  1. Based on a flag at runtime, execute only first activation
>  2. Top row should win in decision table
>  3. If a rule conflicts with a nother rule, which has more conditions satisfied 
> then the engine should be intelligent enough to choose the more specific rule 
> (Specifity)
>
> I dont think Drools 4 supports my requirements, so will try and buuld a 
> ConflictResolver.
>
> Are there any particular notes that I need to keep in mind when designing my 
> own strategy?
>
> Thanks,
> Arjun
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070809/8761fb4b/attachment.html