Re: [rules-users] Evaluate rules for multiple facts of the same type within a StateuflSession
On 19/02/2013, pdario <dario.piantanida(a)gmail.com> wrote:
laune wrote
>> I have a first level discount if you pay online and a second level
>> discount
>> if you pay online AND buy a special product.
>> So, the second is true only if the first is.
>
> Not *quite* correct: you have 1st level discount if you pay online and
> DO NOT buy a special product.
Well, this is strictly true, but it seems to me it is easier to have a
fallback rules instead of specifying in the first rule all the negated
conditions for more specific rules...
Otherwise, I'll have to add to the first rule "AND boughtProduct does not
contain spcial product A, B, C, D...."
Will we go through all of logic and set theory...?
I'm confident that there's a clean and manageable way of preparing
this data to work in combination with a small and constant set of
rules. I refrain from elaborating this in all details without knowing
all of the requirements.
-W
and have to maintain this as we
change the special products every month.
What's the best practice for this?
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Evaluate-rules-for-multiple-facts-of-th...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users