It is one of the strengths of rule-based programming that the "procedural forms" are kept at a minimum. Ideally, the LHS is an expression language, with its expressions being evaluated according to the Engine's innate mechanisms. Also, the clear separation of LHS conditions from RHS actions is one of the more attractive features of reactive systems.

I think that the current LHS syntax needs only a minor extension. Without syntactic sugar:

   $bv: Boolean() from ce ( <LHS condition> )

This always succeeds, firing repeatedly as if it would for the LHS condition being matched and setting $bv to true or firing once for no match with $bv being false. Obviously,
  Boolean( $bv: booleanValue == true ) from ce ( <LHS condition> )
is the same as just <LHS condition> and
  Boolean( $bv: booleanValue == false ) from ce ( <LHS condition> )
is the same as not(<LHS condition>)

Notice that you could write the not-so-descriptive
   rule cond when
     $bv: Boolean() from ce (...)
   then
     if( $bv ){...} else {...}
   end

but also the purely rule-based

   rule cond when
     $bv: Boolean() from ce (...)
   then end

   rule condTrue when
     eval( $bv )
   then
     // RHS for match of LHS conditions
   end
   rule condTrue when
     eval( ! $bv )
   then
     // RHS for no match of LHS conditions
   end

More sophisticated patterns are possible with two or more booleans:
   rule condA when $bva: Boolean() from ce (...) then end
   rule condB extends condA when $bvb: Boolean() from ce (...) then end
Now an extension of condB can refer to both $bva and $bvb.

-W


On 18 August 2011 23:35, Mario Fusco <mario.fusco@gmail.com> wrote:
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