[rules-users] Specific Agenda strategy to control which rules to fire

[Wolfgang Laun]

I don't think you should consider an agenda strategy for this.

Add a simple class:
   class Score{
     int level; int coun; Deal deal; Book book;
     Score( Deal deal, int level ){...}
  }

and insert an instance along with the Deal to be classified:

insert( deal );
insert( new Score( deal ) );

Rules for level 2 would be written according to:

rule "trader and product"
salience 10
when
   $s : Score( level == 2, $d : deal )
    Deal( this == $d, trader=="Alex", product == "GOOG" )
then
   $s.setCount( $s.getCount() + 1 );
   $s.setBook( "B2" );
end

Then you'll need a couple of rules handling success and failure:

rule "post level success"
salience 5
when
   $s : Score( $l : level, count == 1, $d : deal, $b : book )
then
   assign $d to $b, retract $d
   retract( $s );
end

rule "post level failure"
salience 5
when
   $s : Score( $l : level, count != 1 )
then
   modify( $s ){
       setLevel( $l - 1 );
   }
end

Rules for level 1 would also be at salience 10.

A rule for level == 0 should catch Deals "gone down" through all levels.

-W



2009/10/28 Costigliola Joel (EXT) <joel.costigliola-ext at natixis.com>

>   Hello all,
>
>
>
> I need some help to to set a specific Agenda strategy in order to control
> finely which activated rules will be fired.
>
>
>
> Problem context :
>
> -----------------
>
> My company is a bank where traders are making deals on markets, these deals
> must be classified in book, this is what we call “booking process”.
>
> Booking is done according to booking criteria : which trader has made the
> deal ? on which product ? wich market ? etc …
>
> A booking rule defines a set of criteria and the target book where the deal
> will classified, it also has a priority, note that it is ok that two booking
> rule have same priority.
>
> I want to implement booking rule as Drools rule.
>
> Several booking rule can be applied to a deal, in that case choosing the
> right booking rule to fire depends on the following algorithm :
>
> - look all the activated booking rule of the highest priority,
>
> --- if there is a unique rule apply it
>
> --- if there is no unique rule (0 rule or more than one), look at rules of
> a lesser priority and apply the same logic.
>
>
>
> Next section is an example that will clear things (I hope).
>
>
>
> Example :
>
> ---------
>
> A deal D1 has been done by Alex on NY market to buy Google stocks.
>
> We have 3 booking rules :
>
> - BR1 : criteria = trader=Alex / book = B1
>
> - BR2 : criteria = trader=Alex and product = google stock / book = B2
>
> As BR2 is more precise than BR1, il will matches the deal and book it in B1
>
> If the deal was on another product, BR1 would have been applied.
>
>
>
> Things gets more complicated when 2 rules of same priority can be applied.
>
> Let's imagine we add the following booking rule
>
> - BR3 : criteria = trader=Alex and market = NY / book = B3
>
> We have a problem to book D1 since BR2 and BR3 can be applied but have same
> priority.
>
> We can't choose one over the other thus we must apply a less
> precise/prioritary rule (if unique at its own precision level).
>
> In my example, that would lead to apply BR1.
>
>
>
> Question :
>
> ----------
>
> If I define BR1,BR2,BR3 as Drools rules, how can I tell Drools :
>
> - to execute a rule only if there is no other active rule with same
> precision that could be applied ?
>
> - to look for a unique matching rule with less precision level ?
>
>
>
> I think it's the Agenda responsibility to take this decision, but I don't
> know how implement that.
>
> Can you give some advices on that ?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your lights in advance,
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Joel
>
>
>
>
>    ------------------------------
>
>  Ce courriel et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et peuvent
> être couverts par un privilège ou une protection légale. Il est établi à
> l’attention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation de ce courriel
> non conforme à sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale
> ou partielle, est interdite, sauf autorisation expresse préalable. Toutes
> opinions exprimées dans ce courriel ne sauraient nécessairement refléter
> celle de Natixis, de ses filiales. Elles sont aussi susceptibles de
> modification sans notification préalable. Si vous recevez ce courriel par
> erreur, merci de le détruire et d’en avertir immédiatement l’expéditeur.
> L’Internet ne permettant pas d’assurer l’intégrité de ce courriel, Natixis
> décline toute responsabilité s’il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié et
> chaque destinataire qui utilise ce mode de communication est supposé en
> accepter les risques.
>
>  This email and any attachment are confidential and may be legally
> privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. It is intended only for
> the stated addressee(s) and access to it by any other person(s) is
> unauthorised. Any use, dissemination or disclosure not in accordance with
> its purpose, either in whole or in part, is prohibited without our prior
> formal approval. Any opinion expressed in this email may not necessarily
> reflect the opinion of Natixis, its affiliates. It may also be subject to
> change without prior notice. If you are not an addressee, you must not
> disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use or rely on the information
> contained in this email. If you have received it in error, please inform us
> immediately and delete all copies. The Internet can not guarantee the
> integrity of this email therefore Natixis shall not be liable for the email
> if altered, changed or falsified and anyone who communicates with us by
> e-mail is taken to accept these risks.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091029/2900b77a/attachment.html