Re: [rules-dev] Decision table - Otherwise

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 >= 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 listrules-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://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