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