WorkingMemoryFileLogger is still something we need to update. You get access to the results with StatelessSessionResults, you don't get access to the FactHandles as they are meaningless in a stateless session, you can't use them anyway. We may add an internal method to access the working memory, i.e. accessible by casting, but I don't really want to have a public method for this as your average user will just abuse it.

We use to have user pluggeable conflict resolution strategies, but it got removed during some big refactoring, i do intend to add it in before 4.0 final. If people build useful conflict resolution strategies, we will include them - but please do try and base them on existing literature if you can, especially for the naming of the strategies.

Mark


Arjun Dhar wrote: 
Mark Proctor <mproctor <at> codehaus.org> writes:

  
btw SyncrhonisedWorkingMemory used the same interface as WorkingMemory.
StatefulSession just extends WorkingMemory, so the API change for you
should be minimal.
Mark
Mark Proctor wrote:
    

Q) ok! ..So how do I use "WorkingMemoryFileLogger" with a StatelessSession and 
how do I obtain Fact Handles to the facts I asserted?

Feature Requested:
------------------
Q) also, I wish to override the conflict resolution strategy to only have the 
most significant rule execute and not bother about arranging the rest. Winner 
takes all strategy. In 4 are you planning on anything for this? Ok, I think 
this topic deserves a little more respect:

When we create an agenda based on priorities for the rules suited to fire; two 
things need to be done
 1. Intelligence to figure out in certain cases what is priority.
Example: 
Rain = True <-- More generic Rule
Party = False

Rain = True <-- More specific rule
Umbrella = True
Party = True

...i've observed that in such scenarios, the rule engine can be intelligent 
enoug to figure out that a more specific case exists because it is more apt for 
that situation. Ofcourse GIGO, if the analyst is trying to confuse an engine, 
thats illogical in the first place. But logic holds here.

2. When priorities are assigned, the Rule with the highest priority executes 
firest. But that assumption is incorrect as there can be 3 possibilites:
 2.1. Only execute the most important rule (Short Curcuit)
 2.2. Most significant rule, fires first (Like we have when I last checked)
 2.3. Most significant rule should actually execute last, because we want it to 
prevail over the results carried out by others.
..While 2.3 can achieved in a less sophisticated manner by reversing the 
priorities 2.1. ... there is no ready made way to achieve 2.1. 

If there is, please let me know. If not, and i build it would you find 
acceptance in yr next release?

thanks,
Arjun


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