Re: [rules-users] Drools Planner changing problem fact (2D bin packing with related dimension and continuous values)
I don't know anything about Planner, so pardon me if this isn't helping any.
Allocating rectangles into a bigger rectangle could be discretised,
provided the dimensions have a certain granularity. This means that
you have a gridded "arena", from which you allocate certain grid
subsets for the "cuts".
There are some well known techniques for representing gridded areas,
and the corresponding geospatial functions are quite efficient.
I surmise that Planner constraints can be formulated based on a
gridded approach, but (see 1st sentence) I wouldn't know how.
-W
PS: From some research done ~30 years ago I have a vague recollection
that the 2D cutting stock problem is a well trodden area. Google
produces some newer results as well.
On 20/06/2012, Ralph S. <ralphschwitalla(a)me.com> wrote:
Hi Geoffrey,
thanks for the answer.
I like the idea with the getPrevious(X/Y)Item from a combinatorial point of
view, but practially it doesn´t work because you can have more than one
previous item (bigger one has 2 smaller ones to the left/above) and vice
versa, which will let the combinations also explode.
I still like to implement an online Guillotine algorithm (cut the remaining
space and do an heuristic search on the possible results) in drools if it´s
possible. Therefore i still have no idea how to handle the dynamically
changing list of free spaces.
Greetings
Ralph
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Planner-changing-problem-fact-tp...
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