It's also a little dangerous.

Consider that two or more rules should be firing with a flake. If it's already out of WM at the time the first one fires, you can't do a modify, e.g., for controlling the firing of the other rules, or simply for passing them some data via the flake.

Also, a query run from the RHS of any rule with a flake would not show the flake, which is surprising.

Event handling would need to be adapted -  certainly the melting of a flake would have to be reported to a listener, probably with an appropriate indication.

What happens if one inserts two or more flakes in a row?

Can you collect or accumulate flakes?

A logical insert of a fact in a RHS of a rule firing with a flake is pointless.

Well, could be that "djinn" would be even better: it comes, creates mischief and disappears again...

-W



On 12 August 2011 12:45, Mark Proctor <mproctor@codehaus.org> wrote:
On 12/08/2011 11:22, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
One term (probably too long) would be "interjection".

A more pictorial word is "flake", which (thinking of snowflake) provides an inkling for the fast fade away.
The context here is I'm working on an adventure game. You insert commands, the engine evaluates what to do with them, then you retract it again. Once the initial conflict set is evaluated there is no more use for the fact, and you end with redundant rules. I'd rather declare @liftetime(flake) @liftetime(durable) and have the engine handle that, or something along those lines/terms.  Grindwork also adds something slightly different called "consume" for handling similar situations:
http://www.grindwork.com/site/node/6
"This rule fires when those conditions in the 'when' clause become true. When they become true, the "consume" causes the removal of the client message and the old alias (if one was set). The "rising" actions add (+ means add to the knowledge base) facts. One fact is the new alias, and the other is that an alias has changed. The alias changed fact allows others rules to notify people in the channel that the alias changed."


Currently how Commands are handled:
rule invalidMove no-loop when
    $c : MoveCommand($d : direction)
    $h : Here( $l : location)
    not ?connect( $d, $l; )
then
    System.out.println( rule.name + ':' + $c );
end

rule validMove no-loop when
    $c : MoveCommand($d : direction)
    $h : Here( $l : location)
    exists ?connect( $d, $l; )
then
    System.out.println( rule.name + ':' + $c );
    insert( new ExitEvent( $l ) );
    insert( new EnterEvent( $d ) );
    System.out.println( $d );
    modify( $h ) { location = $d };
end

rule retractCommand salience -100 when
    $c : Command()
then
    retract( $c );
end


-W


On 12 August 2011 12:00, Mark Proctor <mproctor@codehaus.org> wrote:
What would you call a fact that is inserted once and the conflict set
computed (the rules that can fire). The fact is then retracted so no
more matches can take place, but the conflict set itself is allowed to
fire (assuming their other facts remain true).

I think this is quite a common use case and most users will handle this
via a lower salience and retracting the fact manually, but I think it's
useful enough to build in as a keyword on type declaration. We just need
a name for it :)

Mark


_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users



_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev


_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev