Edson Tirelli wrote:
>
> If I understood correctly, all you need to do (in Drools 5) is to
> use rule inheritance. Also, in case your "non-leaf" rules have nothing
> to do in their consequences, you can mark them with attribute "enabled
> false".
>
>
https://svn.jboss.org/repos/labs/labs/jbossrules/trunk/drools-compiler/src/test/resources/org/drools/integrationtests/extend_rule_test.drl
>
> So, have rule 1.2 extend rule 1. Have rule 1.2.1 extend rule 1.2
> and so on. Mark the ones that don't have consequence actions with
> enabled false just to avoiding creating useless activations. You still
> need to prioritize rules with salience or whatever you are using for that.
>
> That should do the trick. Report back your findings please, as this
> is a new feature in Drools 5.
>
> Hope it helps,
> Edson
>
> 2009/4/13 Charles Binford <
Charles.Binford@sun.com
>
> All, I'm trying to figure out a better way to solve this problem. I
> have a batch of objects that I want matched against a hierarchy of
> rules. I check the rules in order, and as soon as I find a match I'm
> done for that level of the hierarchy. In other words, If the object
> matches a rule, we'll check the rules children, but not the siblings.
> Example:
>
> rule 1
> rule 1.1
> rule 1.2
> rule 1.2.1
> rule 1.2.2
> rule 1.3
> rule 2
>
> If an object matches rule 1, check for a match at level "1.*", but
> rule
> 2 will never be checked. If an object matches 1, 1.2, and 1.2.1,
> we're
> done as 1.2.1 has no children.
>
> My current implementation with drools works, but is very
> inefficient. I
> have a "level" string in the objects and whenever I find a match I
> update the level of the object and force an object update. Each rule
> tests that the level string is correct, e.g. rule 1.2.1 works as
> follows:
> rule "1.2.1"
> when
> obj(level matches "1.2.*",.....)
> ...
> then
> objSetLevel("1.2.1.*");
> ....
> end
>
> I'm also using saliance to keep the evaluation order like I want it.
>
> Changing the contents of the object and doing the update is not
> good for
> drools performance as I understand it so I'm looking for a better way.
> The hierarchy and the order of the matching is key to my
> application so
> I'm not wanting to redesign that part of things.
>
> I tried using activation-groups. That worked great as long as I only
> had a single object to run through the hierarchy, but given the
> way the
> rest of the system is design I need to load up 10-100 objects before
> each call to fireallrules() for performance purposes.
>
> Any suggestions are appreciated.
>
> Charles Binford
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list