I like Mario's suggestion.
Use of a switch statement could also be an option (to muddy the waters further):-
rule R1
when
D()
switch
A()
then
a1
B()
then
b1
C()
then
c1
switch
then
d1
end
I definitely don't like the ">" "{..}" notation.
Cheers,
Mike
For further info, this is what ilog do. They only allow an implicit "else" on the last "evaluate" expression. Which while simple is quite restrictive.:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/brjrules/v7r1/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.websphere.ilog.jrules.doc/Content/Business_Rules/Documentation/_pubskel/JRules/ps_JRules_Global1895.html
rule ruleName { when {conditioni evaluate (expression)} then {[action1 ... actionm]} else {[action1 ... actionp]} }; OPSJ is the only engine that i know of that uses labels: x.name == obj, x.weight == "light", x.location != g.location); mky: monkey; [4] (mky.holds == obj); } do { makegoal("walkto", loc); } else( 4 ) { makegoal("holds", obj); }Although I would encourage people to think beyond simple "if/else", the proposal I put forward would allow for tree like data flows for signal processing - which will map very nicely to GUI tooling.
Mark
On 19/08/2011 13:56, Toni Rikkola wrote:I got the same feeling that Geoffrey had about readability.
We added "from" its really easy to get, why not add "else".
when
Person( name == "darth" ) else [darthIsMissing]
A()
then
....
then.darthIsMissing
log("Darth was never found");end
or
when
Person( name == "darth" ) else { log("Darth was never found"); }
A()
then
....
end
"Inline then" could be done with inner rules. Similar to what Mario suggested.
rule "Handle Login"when$loginRequest :LoginRequest()AuthorizedUsers( list contains $loginRequest.user ) else [unsuccessfulLoginAttempt]
inner rule "Check if Admin"$p :AdminRights( user == $loginRequest.user )thenshowAdminMenu();end
thenlogInUser( $loginRequest.user );
then.unsuccessfulLoginAttemptlog( "There was and unsuccessful login attempt with the user name " + $loginRequest.user.name );end
Toni
On Aug 19, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Geoffrey De Smet wrote:
I like Mario's proposal because I can actually read it._______________________________________________
Those special chars | < are gibberish to me.
The only reason we're not debating to use a new readable, intuitive keyword, is because of the back-wards compatibility issues involved.
But using unreadable, unintuitive special char just for that, is probably not a good idea.
I wonder if we reserve new keywords by prefix them with reserved special char like "@"?
Then we can introduce as many keywords as we want without breaking backwards compatibility.
Who's our target users for DRL authors?
A) Supersmart computer science guys
B) Blue collar Java programmers
C) Domain experts (= not programmers)
I 'd classify "{notA} < A()" as (given some time to learn it) readable for A, but not for B and C.
Op 18-08-11 23:35, Mario Fusco schreef:Hi Mark,
Since you're gathering 2 cents here and there I decided to add also mine even if I am pretty sure that I am still missing the whole picture and anyway at the moment I cannot see all the consequences of what I am going to propose.
To tell you the truth I find the label syntax not very intuitive and I was wondering if we could avoid it in some way. In the end what the 90% of the users are asking for is just something like:
rule R
when
A()
then
do something
else
do something else
end
while we are going to give them something that is not exactly the same:
rule R
when
{notA} < A()
then
do something
then.notA
do something else
end
In particular I was thinking if we could keep the when ... then ... else syntax that should be familiar to the biggest part of the users and at the same time obtain a flexibility similar to the one provided by the labels syntax. Probably we could do it with a kind of nested rules so, for instance, the rule:
rule R1
when
{af} < A() > {at}
B()
then
DO
then.af
DO.af
then.at
DO.at
end
could be rewritten as it follows:
rule R1
when
B()
then
DO
rule R1A
when
A()
then
DO.at
else
DO.af
end
end
Of course the nested rule couldn't be used by the Drools engine as it is, but we could implement a kind of "linearization" process at compile time that translates it more or less as:
rule R1_1
when
A()
B()
then
DO
DO.at
end
rule R1_2
when
not A()
B()
then
DO
DO.af
end
In the same way the "or" example:
rule R1
when
( A() > {a1} or
B() > {b1} or
C() > {c1} )
D()
then
DO
then.a1
DO.a1
then.b1
DO.b1
then.c1
DO.c1
end
could be written as:
rule R1
when
D()
then
DO
rule R1A
when
A()
then
DO.a1
end
rule R1B
when
B()
then
DO.b1
end
rule R1C
when
C()
then
DO.c1
end
end
and then linearized at compile time in a similar way as I wrote before.
Once again I still haven't evaluated all the implications of my suggestion neither I know if we can cover with it all the cases proposed by Mark. I am pretty sure I am missing something important to be honest, but since we are in a "brainstorming phase" I thought it could worth to consider it at least.
My 2 cents,
Mario
_______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
-- With kind regards, Geoffrey De Smet
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