Thanks for this advice, that’s exactly what I’m looking for, and if I want to use it in the guvnor, is it planned to realize this also there or can it be done unde Other meta data -> type? I use guvnor version 5.0.

 

Regards,

 

Dominik

 

 

Von: Vincent Legendre [mailto:vincent.legendre@eurodecision.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2010 17:27
An: Rules Users List
Cc: Dominik Hüttner; leonardo.f.gomes@gmail.com
Betreff: Re: [rules-users] Get rid of redundant conditions in combined rules.

 

There is something in 5.x which allow a rule to inherit from another. Inheritance is on parent rule conditions.

May be you could write something like this:

rule "london_guys"

when

            customer:Customer(town=="London")

then

            System.out.println(customer.getLname() + " is inhabitant of London");

end

rule "london teachers" extends "london_guys"

when

            Customer(job=="TEACHER") from customer

then

            System.out.println(customer.getLname() + " is a teacher");
end

BUT ...
    1 - As you can see you cannot inject a new contraint in a 'parent' pattern. So you have to use first variable as a source for the second pattern ...
    2 - Bindings in parent rule only works in 5.1 version (may be only in trunk), so be careful


To conclude, try to check (here, for a sample, that may not work, this functionnality is not documented yet), but I think leonardo's solution is best. May be you can adapt it to avoid create new classes, but you could use an additional field in your actual class to "tag" facts according to what your first rules concludes.



Le 19/10/2010 16:29, Dominik Hüttner a écrit :

Hi Leonardo,

the performance problem I thought of meant removing and inserting the facts again and again, if I would remove the facts, that don’t fit the first rule and execute the second rule only on the remaining facts.

The solution you offered, does, what I intend, but the problem is, that I have to create a new class for every rule-pair and I want to use it flexible, without having to create a new class / model for every rule. Is there maybe another way to solve this problem?

 

Kind regards,

 

Dominik

 

 

 

Von: rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] Im Auftrag von Leonardo Gomes
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. Oktober 2010 16:37
An: Rules Users List
Betreff: Re: [rules-users] Get rid of redundant conditions in combined rules.

 

If your problem is performance, don't worry. Conditions evaluation is shared, so in the second rule you won't re-evaluate the entire working memory (to know more:http://www.drdobbs.com/184405218).

If you're worried about not having to repeat the conditions on the second rule, I would create inferred facts when the first rule matches and use then in the second rule + the additional conditions.

Something like:

Rule1:

when

            customer:Customer(town=="London")

then

            insert new LondonCustomer( customer );

 

Rule2:

when

            london : LondonCustomer(customer.job=="TEACHER")

then

            System.out.println(london.customer.getLname() + " is a teacher");

 

2010/10/12 Dominik Hüttner <d.huettner@tiq-solutions.de>

Hello everyone,

I’ve got a question. I’m using drools-guvnor to execute some rule-scenarios. I have to solve the following problem: I have an amount of objects in my working memory and can’t remove objects from the working memory in the then-part of the rule. I want to combine two rules, the first rule selects some objects and the second rule checks only these selected objects for additional criteria. I have to use two rules, because I want to report the objects selected in the first rule, too. Now I have implemented this with two rules and in the second rule, the criterias of the first rule are copied to the second rule, my question is, is there a way to get rid of this redundandance?

I have tried this with a rule flow, but the problem is, this always works on the whole working memory, but I can’t remove the not used objects from working memory for performance reasons. Is there another way to solve this problem?

 

Here is an example for what I intend to do:

 

Rule1:

when

            customer:Customer(town=="London")

then

            System.out.println(customer.getLname() + " is inhabitant of London");

 

Rule2:

when

            customer:Customer(town=="London",job=="TEACHER")

then

            System.out.println(customer.getLname() + " is a teacher");

 

This example illustrates, with the first rule I want to get to know, how many customers are from London and in the second rule I want to know, how many of the London customers are teachers. I want to create a kind of statistics. I have quite a lot of conditions for the first rule, so I don’t want to have them redundantly.

 

Greetings, Dominik


_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

 

 
 
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

 

--
Vincent LEGENDRE
Consultant Sénior

EURODECISION
9A rue de la Porte de Buc 78000 VERSAILLES
Tél. : +33 (0)1 39 07 12 40
Direct : +33 (0)1 39 07 26 16
www.eurodecision.com
EURODECISION