I would not
store the result of the (missed) activation of a rule in a rule

attribute, anyway. Can't you just use a dedicated fact(s) for that?"
I face a similar issue where the target audience are
"business" users i.e users that dont really understanding or
wish to get into logic. I am finding myself having to resort to all sorts
of tricks (using categories/packages/standlone rule editor) to allow business
users to easily specify which rules are for what purposes and when they
should fire. I just cant rely on them using facts correctly to disable
rules that should not fire. In fact, I am now down to using only the standalone
editor and saving the rule xml in my tables (not guvnor) so that i have
full control over itemized rule display, rule search, knowledgebase creation
for different execution profiles, etc.
Overall, I increasingly tend to think rules for business
users is a myth. The business users wants rule-driven systems, yet they
dont want to learn drools. And drools DSL just doesnt cut it.
You can add any metadata using the format @name( "value"
) or @name(

key=value ). You can then look them up using rule.getMetaData(). 

Please notice that there's a bug (solved by an open pull request) that
does

not let you write just @name.

In order to use those attributes to control whether a rule fires or not,
you

can use the "declarative agenda", i.e. add meta-rules to your
knowledge base

such as:

rule "Meta"

@activationListener('direct')

when

    // assuming the attribute is @region( [value] )

    $a : Activation( rule.metaData[ "name" ] != "MyDesiredRegion",
$objs :

objects )

    // any condition on the tuple here, if needed

then

    drools.cancelActivation( $a );

end

notice that you'll have to enable the corresponding option first:

KnowledgeBaseConfiguration kconf =

KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBaseConfiguration();

kconf.setOption( DeclarativeAgendaOption.ENABLED );

KnowledgeBase kb = KnowledgeBaseFactory.newKnowledgeBase( kconf );

If you want to have rules override each other, watch out for an upcoming

feature, "Defeasible logic".

I would not store the result of the (missed) activation of a rule in a
rule

attribute, anyway. Can't you

just use a dedicated fact(s) for that?

Best

Davide

--

View this message in context: 
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Cutom-Attributes-in-Drools-tp4019692p4019736.html

Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________

rules-users mailing list

rules-users@lists.jboss.org

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