[rules-users] setting different value in consequence ( RHS part) based on a conditional check

[Greg Barton]

Nonsense.  
Rules engines can solve many problems much better than a monotonic programming.  The primary area where this is the case are the "watch for given conditions, then act" problems: monitoring, command and control, models, and simulations.  Rule engines are particularly well suited for tackling those problems, as with the "just do it in java" approach you usually end up first implementing a rules engine (badly) and getting stuck twiddling with your engine when you could be solving the problem at hand.
The business rules application of rules engines was just a way to get the technology adopted, but it is by no means the only use of the technology.

--- On Mon, 2/6/12, Welsh, Armand <AWelsh at StateStreet.com> wrote:

From: Welsh, Armand <AWelsh at StateStreet.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] setting different value in consequence ( RHS part) based on a conditional check
To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
Date: Monday, February 6, 2012, 6:45 PM



 
 




As I suggested, if you wish to put conditional logic in the RHS of a rule, you would use a function.  I didn’t provide an example using the function, because
 it did not appear to warrant the need for one, and because I consider this to be a very simplified version of the actual rule. 
   
Again, the decision on how to solve the challenge is up to the developer.  Rules engines are not really designed to solve programmer’s problems, they are designed
 to solve business problems.  And the use of functions to apply business logic obfuscates the code, making it less readable by a business analyst, and complicates the development of the code.  Placing the decision logic in the LHS keeps the rules simple, and
 thus more maintainable by a business analyst.   
   
If only developers will ever look at the code, then I would question the use of drools at all, since many of the challenges we solve with drools can be coded
 more efficiently in straight JAVA code.  But again, the decision is always on the developers. 
   
From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org]
On Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 10:52 AM

To: Rules Users List

Subject: Re: [rules-users] setting different value in consequence ( RHS part) based on a conditional check 
   
Oh my, aren't we a wee bit too dogmatic? I've certainly been known as being a stickler to style and best practice and what not, but in this particular case I'd use a single rule and offload the earth-shaking
 decision between 'Y' and 'N' into a function:



rule x

when

   samplefact1( $status: status, state == "CA" )

then

   fact0.setField1(  yn( $status)  );

end



Cheers

-W



 

On 26 January 2012 18:25, Welsh, Armand <AWelsh at statestreet.com> wrote: 
You cannot, under normal circumstances, place conditional login in the RHS.  This is by design.  Any conditional logic belongs in the LHS.  If you need to perform conditional logic in the RHS, this is usually an indicator that they rule
 is not written correctly.



Now, with that said, there are times when you specifically want to put a decision component in the RHS.  I would do this using a function.



In your case, it really would make sense to use two rules, to represent your one case, like this:





Rule 1

when

               samplefact1( status == "active", state == "CA" ) 



then

               Response fact0= new Response();

               fact0.setField1( "Y" );

               fact0.setName( "something " );



               insert(fact0 );

end 

Rule 2

when

               samplefact1( status != "active", state == "CA" ) 



then

               Response fact0= new Response();

               fact0.setField1( "N" );

               fact0.setName( "something " );



               insert(fact0 );

end



 

These two rules are mutually exclusive, only one will fire, and you get the result you want.  It's really about changing the way you think about decision factors.  You can also achieve the same result like this:





Rule 1

when

               samplefact1(state == "CA" ) 



then

               Response fact0= new Response(); 


               fact0.setName( "something " );



               insert(fact0 );

end



 

Rule 2a

when

               samplefact1( status == "active", state == "CA" )

               $resp : Response ( field1 != "Y")



Then

       modify( $resp ) { setField1( "Y" )  };end



Rule 2b

when

               samplefact1( status != "active", state == "CA" )

               $resp : Response ( field1 == "Y")

then

       modify( $resp ) { setField1( "N" )  };

end



In this scenario, you are changing from hard data mapping to an event oriented rule.  Rule1 creates the basic Response fact, and Rules 2a&2b enrich the response fact based on conditions that may arise throughout the processing of the rules, independent of the
 initial creation step.  Just whenever you have a response fact that is not Y, set it to Y, and of course the inverse rule...  This requires more processing for the rules, but in a large rules based system this may be more in-line with what  you really want.



Armand 




-----Original Message-----

From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of vadlam

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:11 AM

To: rules-users at lists.jboss.org

Subject: [rules-users] setting different value in consequence ( RHS part) based on a conditional check



Hi,



we have an existing BRL rule in Guvnor whereby we set the value of some

fields in RHS based on some value checks in the condition part. we have

created several of these rules already in a previous release.



In the next release, we have new requirements to set the value of an

existing field  in consequence to be of 2 different values based on a

specific conditional evaluation. the rest of the rule remains the same.



to clarify,



when

               samplefact1( status== "active" , state=="CA" )



           then



               Response fact0= new Response();

               fact0.setField1( "Y" );

               fact0.setName( "something " );



               insert(fact0 );

       end



we now have to change this to set Field1 value to Y or N based on some

updated condition for status field.



 lets say if status=="active" , Field1 has to be Y, but when status=closed,

then Field1 has to be N



Please keep in mind that the rest of the rule remains the same.



is there a way to set the value of Field1 to be Y or N within the

consequence part of same rule without having to create another rule .



will the use of functions or variables be of any help in this case?















--

View this message in context: 
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/setting-different-value-in-consequence-RHS-part-based-on-a-conditional-check-tp3690826p3690826.html

Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________

rules-users mailing list

rules-users at lists.jboss.org

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



_______________________________________________

rules-users mailing list

rules-users at lists.jboss.org

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



   




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

_______________________________________________
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/20120206/3101a1cb/attachment.html