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@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Michael Neale <michael.neale@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-dev] Decision table - Otherwise
To: "Rules Dev List" <rules-dev@lists.jboss.org>
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@gmail.com> wrote:
I bet Edson can't wait to refactor the parser for that ;)


On 31 March 2011 21:11, Mark Proctor <mproctor@codehaus.org> 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 >= 30 )

  • <= becomes "> the maximum value of the other cells' values
  • > becomes "<= the minimum value of the other cells' values
  • >= becomes "< the minimum value of the other cells' 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@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



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