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

[Wolfgang Laun]

Hello Frank,

there is nothing wrong with your reason A and B. But the decision
what to include in the "decision logic" is an engineering decision,
and in engineering you always have a certain leeway within the
margin set by mathematical or natural laws. Is maintenance
easier if you have 2 rules where there is absolutely no
decision in RHS code or is it better to have one rule plus a simple
mapping function? What if this distinction must be made in a
number of rules so that you have 2*n compared to n plus one
function?

As for C, I just don't know how you envisage a "business user" and
his or her capabilities. Understanding rules that go beyond the
noncommittal "there is a thing with property X equal to x and
property Y equal to y" is not something a layman can be expected
to have at his fingertips. But, assuming this "business user" can
read logic: there is not good reason why he or she shouldn't be
able to understand a simple functional mapping.

Cheers
Wolfgang


On 27/01/2012, FrankVhh <frank.vanhoenshoven at agserv.eu> wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> Can I push you for a clarification on this statement?
>
> Imho, any of the following reasons is good enough to put a "decision" in
> rules
>     A- The decision logic is likely to be subject to change
>     B- The decision logic is too complex to implement in a procedural way
>     C- The decision logic is making sense to business users. (i.e.
> non-technical logic)
>
> In this case, option B is opviously way off. But one can only guess
> regarding A and C.
>
> Regards,
> Frank
>
>
> laune wrote
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at .jboss
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/setting-different-value-in-consequence-RHS-part-based-on-a-conditional-check-tp3690826p3692750.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
>