Won't that just make the rule activate after 3 minutes?
rule AnoB
when
$a: A( status == "waiting for B" )
not B( this after [3m] $a )
then
modify( $a ){ setStatus( "no B within 3m after me" ) }
end
Is this any good?
Also "untested" ;)
2011/7/5 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>
Try a rule with a timer:
rule AnoB
timer( int: 3m )
when
$a: A( status == "waiting for B" )
not B( this after $a )
then
modify( $a ){ setStatus( "no B within 3m after me" ) }
end
Untested.
-W
On 5 July 2011 13:00, wendy <w.mungovan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm having trouble writing an absence pattern. What I'm trying to do is
> detect when there is an A followed by no Bs for 3+minutes. I don't care
> if
> there is more than one A. What I'm running into is that when I try to use
> 'over window:time' the time within drools is the end time of the window.
> So
> this means I need to write the no Bs for 3+ min first:
>
> not( $b: B() over window:time(3m))
>
> then try to find the A before it:
>
> $now: Long() from RuleUtilityFunctions.getSessionClockTime()
> $a: A( this before [3m] $now)
>
> then I should have to check to make sure that I don't have any Bs between
> $a's time and the start of the no B window:
>
> not( B( time >= $a.time,
> time <= $now))
>
> This is not working. I think that it has something to do with my function
> to get the session clock time (RuleUtilityFunctions.getSessionClockTime())
> and how things get evaluated within the Rete engine. Because it does not
> seem like $now is getting re-evaluated on future calls that pass the $b
> condition. If I replace $now with the call to getSessionClockTime()
> everything just seems to get weird.
>
> I've tried to write the rule forward too. Look for A followed by no B but
> that does not seem to work because A is matched at the current time and
> the
> rule triggers because there is no B because the future B data has not be
> inserted into working memory yet.
>
> What is the right way to write this rule? Is there a way to get the
> start
> and end time of the time window that met the over window:time() condition?
>
> Thank you,
> Wendy
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Absence-Pattern-question-tp3140377p3140...
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users