Re: [rules-dev] Decision table - Otherwise

Oh, it's been dragging on longer than that.  I used it in OPSJ in 1999. :P --- On Thu, 3/31/11, Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: From: Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com&gt; Subject: Re: [rules-dev] Decision table - Otherwise To: "Rules Dev List" <rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Date: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 4:20 PM Otherwise has been dragging on since 2006. There are many skeletons in that cave.  I will believe it when I see it ! On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I bet Edson can't wait to refactor the parser for that ;) On 31 March 2011 21:11, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: on a related note I do plan to add OTHERWISE support at a DRL level, just no time to do it right now. Once it's supported at a DRL level, you won't need to as much work on figuring out the inverse options etc. Mark On 31/03/2011 20:25, Michael Anstis wrote: Hi, I'm adding support for "otherwise" to (for the time being) the guided decision table in Guvnor. The idea being if you set a cell to represent "otherwise" the generated rule is the opposite of the accumulation of the other cells; perhaps best explained with an example:- Person( name == ) Mark Kris Geoffrey <otherwise> This would generate:- Person(name not in ("Mark", "Kris", "Geoffrey") Equals is the simple example, this is my thoughts for the other operators we might like to support:- != becomes "in (<list of the other cells' values)" < becomes ">= the maximum value of the other cells' values For example:- Person ( age < ) 10 20 30 <otherwise> Person ( age <= becomes "> the maximum value of the other cells' values values values "in" becomes "not in (<a list of all values contained in all the other cells' lists of values>)" For example:- Person ( name in ) Jim, Jack Lisa, Jane, Paul <otherwise> Person ( name not in ("Jim", "Jack", "Lisa", "Jane", "Paul" ) ) I'm not sure there is a simple solution for "matches" and "soundslike" but welcome advice, although a possibility might be to create a compound field constraint:- Person ( name soundslike ) Fred Phil not Person ( name soundslike "Fred" || soundslike "Phil" ) Would this be considered the most suitable approach? Inputs and thoughts welcome. Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev -- Michael D Neale home: www.michaelneale.net blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev