Re: [rules-users] Existensial not question
That is great news. I misunderstood the behavior of the "exists" and
"not".
I thought it would only fire once, period. It wasn't a problem with our
limitted test data, but I was thinking it would be a problem once we tested
with large fact sets.
Thanks Edson!
Edson Tirelli-3 wrote:
Bryan,
I'm not sure I completely understood your scenario, but Drools supports
FOL and your scenario can be implemented whatever it is.
I think the best way is giving you some examples:
rule "Fires FOR EACH fact that does not have a corresponding Exception
Range"
when
Fact1($number : number)
not ExceptionRange(startRange <= $number, stopRange >= $number)
then
// do something
end
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Existensial-not-question-tf4481066.html#a12782071
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.