Re: [rules-users] Grouping rules

Thanks. That helped. On Feb 1, 2008 7:31 AM, Anstis, Michael (M.) <manstis1(a)ford.com&gt; wrote: > Excuse me if you already understand but there is a difference between > rule patterns being evaluated and their consequence running. > > Rules LHS are evaluated when objects are inserted into working memory > whereas the consequence fires when you call fireAllRules(); > > The rules whose activations are executed are those in the given Agenda > Group; thereafter those not in any agenda group execute. So if all rules are > in an Agenda Group you should be OK. > > Of course they don't prevent all rule patterns from being checked as > objects are inserted into WM (which has a performance impact) but this is > what the RETE network was designed to optimise. > > You could try another configuration (but I think Agenda Groups are > probably the preference by design). This gives complete isolation - but I > haven't tried it so it might not even be possible ;-) > > global WorkingMemory wm; > global RuleBase rbX; > global RuleBase rbY; > > rule "Group X" > when > Fact( attribute == "condition1" ) > then > wm = rbX.newStatefulSession(); > wm.fireAllRules(); > end > > rule "Group Y" > when > Fact( attribute == "condition2" ) > then > wm = rbY.newStatefulSession(); > wm.fireAllRules(); > end > > Good luck. > > Mike > > ------------------------------ > *From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto: > rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Jai Vasanth > *Sent:* 01 February 2008 15:07 > *To:* Rules Users List > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Grouping rules > > > Thanks for responding > Yes, I did consider agenda groups, but I thought agenda groups only > ordered execution in a particular fashion, so if Rule "pick group X" fires > then it would make sure that rules in Agenda Group X fire first before the > remaining but the remaining would fire eventually. Is my understanding > correct ? > I am looking for a solution for completely isolating a rule set > conditioned on an object attribute. > > On Feb 1, 2008 12:46 AM, Anstis, Michael (M.) <manstis1(a)ford.com&gt; wrote: > > > What about Agenda Groups? > > > > Rule "pick group X" > > when > > Fact( attribute = "condition1" ) > > then > > drools.setFocus("Group X") > > end > > > > Rule "pick group Y" > > when > > Fact( attribute = "condition2" ) > > then > > drools.setFocus("Group Y") > > end > > > > Rule "Group X1" > > Agenda Group "Group X" > > when > > Smurf( ) > > then > > // Do something > > end > > > > Rule "Group X2" > > Agenda Group "Group X" > > when > > Smurfette( ) > > then > > // Something else > > end > > > > etc > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto: > > rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Jai Vasanth > > *Sent:* 31 January 2008 19:45 > > *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > > *Subject:* [rules-users] Grouping rules > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am building a system where I would need to fire different sets of > > rules based on some attribute in the fact object. > > > > Here are someways which I thought of, I was wondering if there was > > something better than that. > > > > 1) I could do this by creating different sessions based on the data > > attrbute (different sessions would have different rule packages based on the > > attribute) > > > > or > > > > 2) Have all the rules fire (all the different sets of rules) > > irrespective of the attribute and have them insert fact new objects into the > > working memory. In the second round of rules, collect the (newly made) fact > > objects based on the attribute and take that action. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Jai > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > >