[rules-users] Can we use rule "extends" option in decision tables?

[Wolfgang Laun]

Consider a rule A and another one, B, extending it. If both are activated
and
A fires first, it may change a fact so that A's consequence isn't true any
more.
But this would deactivate B so that it can't fire at all. You can also
write a consequence for B that modifies facts so that A's condition becomes
false.

The only reliable way seems to let B's consequence modify only
facts bound in B's (additional) conditions and to give it a higher
constraint - then A's consequence will fire later and modify facts
bound in A's condition.

There's no documentation on "extends" for rules, although it has been around
for quite some time. Perhaps it's just an experimental feature that will
disappear again...?

-W

On 7 September 2012 22:47, lhorton <LHorton at abclegal.com> wrote:

> Good points.  And in fact, decision tables are already designed to do the
> kind of thing I'm experimenting with using "extends," i.e. they let one put
> a set of common conditions in one CONDITION column that can be used by
> one-to-many rules in the table.
>
> Is there documentation about how 'extends' works as a rule option?  In my
> experiments so far I see the base rule usually firing before the rule that
> extends it, but in some cases i see only the extended rule firing, which
> didn't make sense to me.  We're still on 5.2.0.Final though, so maybe
> things
> have changed.  Don't worry, I'm not going to file a bug report!  Just
> experimenting with this new-to-me feature.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Can-we-use-rule-extends-option-in-decision-tables-tp4019653p4019660.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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20120909/87fd869b/attachment.html