Katvik what are you trying to achieve by realizing your goal? I'm curious
to know the context.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>wrote:
You've got to realize that evaluation proceeds according to the
on a rule's LHS. Clearly, if a rule fires, all of your conditions are true.
I assume that this isn't the only answer you expect. - Let's look at a
simple example in DRL:
One( a == x )
Two( b == y )
Three( c == z )
If this rule doesn't fire, two out of these three conditions may be true,
or each of them, singularly. If you need to know which pairs and which
singletons, you'll have to write individual rules for One, Two, Three and
all pairs, i.e., One+Two, One+Three, Two+Three - not very attractive.
You might get more information about the state of your facts by writing
the singleton rules, do an insertLogical of an auxiliary fact representing
the truth of its LHS, and proceed from there. (...)
I can't recall any requirement quite like yours; usually it's the negative
form, when people want to know which constraint causes a rule *not *to
A more detailed description of your actual requirements might help, but
decision tables may not be the right vehicle for your kind of problem.
On 26 January 2013 05:52, katvik <katvik(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> We are using decision table in our application and I need to capture the
> results of the evaluation of every condition of a rule. Is it possible?
> Thank you.
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com
> rules-users mailing list
rules-users mailing list