[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-115) Add support for strong negation
by Michael Biarnes Kiefer (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-115?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Michael Biarnes Kiefer updated DROOLS-115:
------------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 6.0.0.CR5
(was: 6.0.0.CR4)
> Add support for strong negation
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-115
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-115
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
> Reporter: Davide Sottara
> Assignee: Davide Sottara
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 6.0.0.CR5
>
>
> Drools "not" operator implements a type of "negation by failure", i.e. not X() behaves as the negation of "exists" or, in other words, translates as "it is NOT asserted that ...".
> However, another form of stronger negation is needed to express conditionals such as "it is asserted that NOT ..."
> It should be possible, then, to assert facts both in a "positive" and "negative" way, to assert THAT and THAT NOT.
> The language should also support a "neg" CE to create "negative" patterns which will match with negative facts. I.e. it should be possible to write rules such as:
> when $p : Person() and Car( owner == $p ) then
> // a positive, matching Car is present in the WM
> when $p : Person() and neg Car( owner == $p ) then
> // a negative, matching Car is present in the WM
> when $p : Person() and not Car( owner == $p ) then
> // neither a positive nor a negative fact exists in the WM
> For a more detailed description and motivation see e.g.:
> https://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/publications/wagner/WebRules2Neg.pdf
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 3 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-254) "Exists OR" rules are compiled inconsistently
by Michael Biarnes Kiefer (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Michael Biarnes Kiefer updated DROOLS-254:
------------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 6.0.0.CR5
(was: 6.0.0.CR4)
> "Exists OR" rules are compiled inconsistently
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-254
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-254
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
> Affects Versions: 5.5.0.Final, 6.0.0.CR3
> Reporter: Davide Sottara
> Assignee: Mark Proctor
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 5.5.1.Final, 6.0.0.CR5
>
>
> Exists ( A or B ) is transformed into ( Exists A ) or ( Exists B )
> In case both A and B are asserted, they result in two activations,
> whereas one would expect only one.
> Moreover, the equivalent not ( (not A) and (not B) ) results in only
> one activation.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 3 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-249) Handle conflicts when using @position in declared types
by Michael Biarnes Kiefer (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-249?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Michael Biarnes Kiefer updated DROOLS-249:
------------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 6.0.0.CR5
(was: 6.0.0.CR4)
> Handle conflicts when using @position in declared types
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-249
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-249
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
> Affects Versions: 5.5.0.Final, 6.0.0.CR2
> Reporter: Davide Sottara
> Assignee: Mark Proctor
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 5.5.1.Final, 6.0.0.CR5
>
>
> declare A
> f : int @position(2)
> g : int @position(1)
> end
> declare B extends A
> h : int @position(3)
> i : int @position(2)
> end
> The resulting field order may not be deterministic because of
> - the clashes (2)
> - the missing pos (0)
> this is dangerous when used with positional constraints
> B( $x, $y, $z, $w ; )
> Marked as minor because of the obvious workaround
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 3 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-268) Delayed rule schedules are computed erroneously
by Mario Fusco (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-268?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Mario Fusco resolved DROOLS-268.
--------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 5.5.1.Final
Resolution: Done
> Delayed rule schedules are computed erroneously
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-268
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-268
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
> Affects Versions: 5.5.0.Final, 6.0.0.CR3
> Reporter: Davide Sottara
> Assignee: Mario Fusco
> Fix For: 5.5.1.Final, 6.0.0.Final
>
>
> Consider the following case, where all patterns are events
> $a : A()
> $b : B()
> not C( this after[0,N] $a )
> When the schedule time is computed, the ACTIVATION timestamp is considered
> as the starting timestamp, rather than $a's timestamp.
> If $b is insert after $a, the rule's schedule will be N time units after $b.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 3 months