Not as clear as I'd hoped; can you provide an actual rule DRL?
2010/10/13 Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com>
Michael
Here are some examples
Rule1 has "str1", "Str2", "Str3"
Rule2 has "str2", "Str3", "Str5", "Str6",
"Str7"
Rule3 has "str1", "Str3", "Str6"
etc.
With fact1 that has "str1", "Str3" , since this is subset of values
in
Rule1 and Rule3, they should not fire but Rule2 should fire
With fact2 that has "str2", "Str6", "Str7", Rule 2 should
not fire and
Rule1 and Rule3 should fire.
Hope this is clear.
Thanks
Kumar
2010/10/13 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
> Thanks, please provide a specific example rule too.
>
> Don't forget to keep your posts to the mailing list for the good of the
> community.
>
>
> On 12 October 2010 22:18, Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Michale
>> Thanks for the response.
>> Here's the link for the thread .
>>
>>
>>
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Check-if-fact-is-subs...
>>
>> and the original about matching strings in two arrays.
>>
>>
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Matching-strings-in-t...
>>
>>
>> My use case is that I could have hundreds of rule and each rule could
>> have its own set of strings.
>> A fact object is run through these rules to see which ones are fired.
>> One of the condition to check is that the a list in the fact is not a
>> subset of list in the rule.
>> That is fire the rule only if list in fact is not a subset of list in
>> rule.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Kumar
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Michael Anstis <
>> michael.anstis(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I admit I don't have the original thread anymore.
>>>
>>> If I am not wrong (which is always a possibility) for Wolfgang's
>>> operator to work you'd need to externalise the superset from the rule
into
>>> WorkingMemory. You could have a rule with higher salience construct the
>>> superset WM fact.
>>>
>>> If you don't mind re-posting or providing a link to the complete thread
>>> (on Nabble or somewhere) I'll happily try to help further.
>>>
>>> On 12 October 2010 17:23, <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <quote author='Michael Anstis-2'>
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang gave a great solution.
>>>> </quote>
>>>> Don't know if I'm missing something obvious here. I have a
superset in
>>>> the rule itself. Each rule has a superset list. In this case how would I
use
>>>> Wolfgang's solution. Its comparing through two arrays in runtime. I
have not
>>>> been able to construct an array construct with specific values in the
rule
>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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