[rules-users] conditional insert of 'exist' or 'not' keywords in decision table s

[Steven Williams]

Hi Vlad,

With the new decision table handling you could use the following template to
do it:

Given a table as follows:

  exists, 21, 25

, comprehensive

not, 64, 100

exists, comprehensive

the following template does what you want:

template header
driver[]
policy[]

package This_is_a_ruleset;
#generated from Decision Table
import example.model.Driver;
import example.model.Policy;

template "Driver policy"
driver
policy

rule "driver policy $row.rowNumber$"
    when
        $driver0$
        Driver(age >= $driver1$, age <= $driver2$)
        $policy0$
        Policy(type = "$policy1$")
then
    //do smth
end
end template
the code to call it was:
    public void testColumnKeywords() {
        final ExternalSpreadsheetCompiler converter = new
ExternalSpreadsheetCompiler();
        final String drl = converter.compile( "/data/TestWorkbook.xls",
"/templates/test_keywords.drl",
                                              InputType.XLS, 1, 1 ); // DT
starts at Row 1, Column 1
        System.out.println(drl);
    }

cheers
Steve

On 2/17/07, Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) <Vladimir.Olenin at moh.gov.on.ca> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>
>
> I wonder if it's possible to pass some Column keywords as parameters from
> template values, eg:
>
>
>
> Condition
>
> Condition
>
> $1 Driver
>
> $1 Policy
>
> age >= $2, age <= $3
>
> type
>
> exists, 21, 25
>
> , comprehensive
>
> not, 64, 100
>
> exists, comprehensive
>
>
>
> I'd expect the above table would generate two rules like:
>
>
>
> Rule 1
>
> When
>
>             exists Driver (age >= 21, age <= 25)
>
>             Policy(type == "comprehensive")
>
> Then
>
>             // do smth
>
> End
>
>
>
>
>
> Rule 2
>
> When
>
>             not Driver (age >= 64, age <= 100)
>
>             exists Policy (type == "comprehensive")
>
> then
>
>             // do smth
>
> End
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The above example is just a mock up derived from one of the examples in
> the documentation to demonstrate the point (meaning, the rules themselves
> might not make sense from business point of view or can be implemented
> differently for this particular case).
>
>
>
> So, any way to achieve this? Whether in current version (3.0.x) or the
> upcoming release (3.2)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Vlad**
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at 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
stevenw at objectconsulting.com.au
www.objectconsulting.com.au

consulting | development | training | support
our experience makes the difference
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070217/83163f9d/attachment.html