Hi,
I finally noticed a "forall" keyword that might be useful (see section
"5.1.4.1. Syntax of templates").
Maybe can you try something like:
[forall(&&){Option(code == $)}]
Bruno.
Bruno Freudensprung a écrit :
Hi Gurvinder,
I've just taken a look at chapter 5.1 of Drools Expert about decision
tables but I've been unable to find out how to do that.
If you find a solution, could you please post it here? I'm pretty sure I
will need that as well ;-).
Best regards,
Bruno.
groovenarula a écrit :
> Thanks for the options, Bruno and Wolfgang.
>
> But is there a more 'generic' way to do the matches ? The problem I have is
> that the # of instances that might match could vary. And I have to provide a
> means for the business users to be able to provide that 'option's code'
> using a decision table. Basically I need to be able to provide a construct
> that's would look something like :
>
> Options
> "P1,P2"
> "P1,P4,P5"
>
> So in the above decision table had 2 rules where in the first row represents
> a rule that matches against Options with Codes P1 and P2. And the second
> rule would match against options with codes P1, P4 and P5.
>
> Is it possible to represent this using Drools decision tables ?
>
> Thanks
> Gurvinder
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users