Re: [rules-users] More temporal operator questions

If you'll indulge me, I have a couple more questions on temporal operators. I have specific requirements where the built-in operators don't *quite* fit. I'm finding workarounds but I don't love them and basically I'm looking for validation of my approach or better ideas. 1. I need an operator that means "includes with endpoints". In other words, "A includeswithendpoints B" means A.start <= B.start < B.end <= A.end. Another way to look at it is: A "includes or coincides or starts or finishedby" B. I've been messing around with the parameters to includes. Ideally, I'd represent this as "includes[0, duration]", where "duration" is A's duration. This would mean that the minimum distance between the start and end timestamps is 0 and the maximum distance between the start and end points is Event A's duration. However, I haven't been able to find a way to pass a dynamic parameter to the operator. My workaround in this case is "includes[0, 1000000d]", where 1000000d is just an arbitrarily large number. My tests so far have borne this out as working, but I don't like it because it's not very self-explanatory; everywhere I use it, I will need to include a comment. The beauty of the temporal operators is that they are intuitive and I feel like this workaround is compromising that. 2. Given an interval-based event A and a point-in-time event B, I need an operator which means A "finishedby or includes" B; i.e., A.start < B.timestamp <= A.end. Similarly, in this case, the workaround is "includes[1ms, 1000000d, 0, 1000000d]". This takes the ugliness and need for explanatory comments to a new level. A few questions: 1. Is there any technical reason why my workarounds won't work (besides the obvious one where there is an event that lasts 1000001 days)? 2. Are there better solutions? (e.g., can I define my own operators?) 3. As a general rule, I avoid using "or" logic in my rules. However, is this a case where I should consider it? To me, "EventA( this includes $eventB || this finishedby $eventB )" is much cleaner than "EventA( this includes[1ms, 1000000d, 0, 1000000d] $eventB )", but that doesn't mean I like it. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Mike _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users