<font size="2"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">glad i could help.</font></font><div><font size="2"></font><font class="Apple-style-span" face="verdana, sans-serif">_ miguel</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
</font><div><font size="2"><font face="verdana,sans-serif"><br></font></font><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/5/6 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Tom.E.Murphy@wellsfargo.com">Tom.E.Murphy@wellsfargo.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Actually, in the light of day, I see why it behaved as it did.
It doesn’t seem to be caused by the AccountHolder as such, but more the Employment
object – if there are two of them, one with an accountholder and BusinessName
that met the criteria, and one without, then the rule will fire whether the not
is used or not, just on different instances of Employment.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Thanks for triggering the thought process, Miguel.</span></p><div class="im">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#4F81BD">Tom Murphy</span></b><span style="color:#1F497D"><br>
</span><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Business Process Consultant<br>
Wells Fargo HCFG - CORE Deal Decisioning Platform<br>
800 S. Jordan Creek Parkway | West Des Moines, IA 50266<br>
MAC: </span></i><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">X2301-01B</span></i><i><span style="color:#1F497D"><br>
</span></i><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Office: </span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">515 324 4853</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> | </span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:red">Mobile:
515 423 4334</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><br>
</span></b><i><span style="font-size:7.5pt;color:gray">This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this
for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based
on this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.</span></i><span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
</div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">
<a href="mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>miguel machado<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:19 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Rules Users List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rules-users] Bug in "not" ???</span></p>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">This
is not entirely true: you may have different objects in memory in such a way
that both fires rule. In this case, if you had two (or more!) AccountHolders
for the same Employment, each of those having different BusinessName's
associated, both rules (with and without the 'not') would fire.</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Does that
make sense?</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>_ miguel</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2010/5/5 <<a href="mailto:Tom.E.Murphy@wellsfargo.com" target="_blank">Tom.E.Murphy@wellsfargo.com</a>></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The following rule fires both when the “not” is there, and
also if the “not” is commented out. Clearly, both cannot be true, so there is
something wrong somewhere.</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
"To understand what is recursion you must first understand recursion"</p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
rules-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org">rules-users@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>"To understand what is recursion you must first understand recursion"<br>
</div></div>