If there may be two EventA with the same timestamp, additional
constraints may be necessary, and
after may have to be used with a start time of 0ms:
$a1: EventA( $index : index )
$a2: EventA( this != $a1 && after[0ms] $a1, index == $index )
$a3: EventA( this != $a1 && != $a2 && after[0ms] $a2, index == $index )
-W
2010/10/26 赵侃侃 <kevin223(a)gmail.com>:
Hello,
Hello,
I just tried this rule, but it doesn't seem to work as expected.
What I have now is every time I have an EventA received then a pattern is
reported matched no matter whether any of the other constrains is met.
Any ideas?
Best Regards,
Kevin Zhao
2010/10/26 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
>
> You could try this too; if you don't want lots of new attributes for your
> model:-
>
> rule "three A"
> when
> $a1: EventA( $index : index )
> $a2: EventA( index == $index )
> $a3: EventA( index == $index )
> not PatternConsumer( name == 'AAA', events contain $a1 || contais $a2 ||
> contains $a3)
> not EventB( this after[0ms] $a1 && before[0ms] $a3, index == $index )
> then
> // ... match
> PatternConsumer pc = new PatternConsumer("AAA", $a1, $a2, $a3 );
> insert(pc);
> end
>
>
> 2010/10/25 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>
>>
>> Giving those other rules a higher salience is one way, but I think
>> it is better to add a boolean field "usedForAAA" to class EventA.
>>
>> rule "three A"
>> when
>> $a1: EventA( $index : index, usedForAAA == false )
>> $a2: EventA( index == $index, usedForAAA == false )
>> $a3: EventA( index == $index, usedForAAA == false )
>> not EventB( this after[0ms] $a1 && before[0ms] $a3, index == $index )
>> then
>> // ... match
>> modify( $a1 ){ setUsedForAAA( true ) }
>> modify( $a2 ){ setUsedForAAA( true ) }
>> modify( $a3 ){ setUsedForAAA( true ) }
>> end
>>
>> -W
>>
>>
>> 2010/10/25 赵侃侃 <kevin223(a)gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Thanks Wolfgang,
>>> It now starts to make sense to me. However, is it possible that I don't
>>> retract those matched eventA? All those events might be used to evaluate
>>> against other rules.
>>> Thanks again,
>>> Kevin Zhao
>>> 2010/10/25 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> I assume you are using Fusion, using a session clock so that temporal
>>>> operators are available.
>>>>
>>>> rule "three A"
>>>> when
>>>> $a1: EventA( $index : index )
>>>> $a2: EventA( index == $index )
>>>> $a3: EventA( index == $index )
>>>> not EventB( this after[0ms] $a1 && before[0ms] $a3, index ==
$index )
>>>> then
>>>> // ... match
>>>> retract( $a1 );
>>>> retract( $a2 );
>>>> retract( $a3 );
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> -W
>>>>
>>>> 2010/10/25 赵侃侃 <kevin223(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> I'm still quite new to the drools stuffs just getting the
examples
>>>>> running. I'm sorry if my question is too basic.
>>>>> I have a system that will continuously to receive events sent from
>>>>> some other system. Basically I have two types of events, eventA and
eventB.
>>>>> Both eventA and eventB have two properties, index and timestamp.
>>>>> What I want is to capture a pattern to meet the following conditions
>>>>> 1. every 3 consecutive eventsA without any eventB in between having
a
>>>>> same index value ordering by their timestamp.
>>>>> 2. all events in a matched pattern will have the same value of
>>>>> property index.
>>>>> 3. if a pattern is matched, any of the events in this pattern should
>>>>> not be used again for a new matching.
>>>>> there are some examples below, the number after a colon stands for
the
>>>>> value of its index number and assume those events are already ordered
by
>>>>> their timestamp.
>>>>> eventB:2 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventB:3
>>>>> --------- one successful match, we have three eventA with same index
value
>>>>> 1 in a row
>>>>> eventB:2 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventB:1 eventA:1
>>>>> --------- no match because there's an eventB in between
>>>>> eventB:2 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventB:2 eventA:1
>>>>> --------- one successful match because the in-between eventB has a
>>>>> different index value
>>>>> eventA:1 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventA:1
>>>>> --------- only one match, because once matched, the events can not
be used
>>>>> for a second match again.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just don't know how to write a rule like this. Is there anyone
who
>>>>> can shed some lights on?
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rules-users mailing list
>>>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rules-users mailing list
>>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-users mailing list
>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users