Re: [rules-users] no-loop & lock-on-active clarification
Thanks Greg.
As for lock-on-active, it should be used in conjunction with a
ruleflow-group or agenda-group. It's >basically no-loop for the entire
group, as I understand it. I don't see either a ruleflow-group or
agenda-group defined for those rules. Did you do that?
- no.
I'm not using a ruleflow-group or agenda-group.
1. Even if I dont use agenda-group explicitly, all rules are in "main"
agenda group right. shouldn't we use lock-on-active without explicit
agenda-group or rule-flow group?
I can understand result #1 & #2.
It would be nice if some one clarify result # 3 & #4 of my example. here
both rules have 'update'.
3. when lock-on-active for rule "1 precondition" and
no-loop for rule "1
main condition" used, both rule got fired correctly.
4. when lock-on-active for rule "1 maincondition" and no-loop for rule "1
precondition" used, only rule "1 , then only precondition" got executed
for all facts.
Thanks again!
Greg Barton wrote:
You certainly need no-loop for rule "1 precondition" as it stands because
the Foo is updaetd, but not in a way that prevents the rule from firing
again. One way to prevent that would be to put a condition in the rule
that is the antithesis of some update you make:
rule "1 precondition"
when
foo : Foo( preconditionPassedRule not contains "1 precondition", f1 !=
null, f2 != null)
then
foo.addPreconditionPassedRule("1 precondition");
update(foo)
end
As for lock-on-active, it should be used in conjunction with a
ruleflow-group or agenda-group. It's basically no-loop for the entire
group, as I understand it. I don't see either a ruleflow-group or
agenda-group defined for those rules. Did you do that?
--- On Tue, 11/11/08, techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [rules-users] no-loop & lock-on-active clarification
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 10:25 AM
> I tried following rules as given below and result
> are:(assumes facts which
> I tried are qualified for both rules)
>
> 1. when lock-on-active used with both rule, only rule
> "1 precondition" got
> executed for all facts.
> 2. when no-loop used with both rules, infinite loop
> 3. when lock-on-active for rule "1 precondition"
> and no-loop for rule "1
> main condition" used, both rule got fired correctly.
> 4. for vice versa of 3 scenario, only rule "1
> precondition" got executed for
> all facts.
> Can someone please clarify about this scenario and also
> diff between no-loop
> & lock-on-active? when we should use one and when
> should not?
> I went thru documentation and still could not understand
> the difference.
>
> public class Foo
> {
> private Set<String> preConditionPassedRules ;
>
> private Integer f1;
> private Integer f2;
>
> }
>
> rule "1 precondition"
> salience 100
>
> when
> foo : Foo( f1 != null && f2 != null)
> then
> foo.addPreconditionPassedRule("1
> precondition");
> update(foo)
>
> end
>
> rule "1 main condition"
> salience 100
>
> when
> foo : Foo( preconditionPassedRule contains "1
> precondition",f1 > 1000,f2
> < 1000)
> then
> #actions
>
> end
>
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://www.nabble.com/no-loop---lock-on-active-clarification-tp20443036p2...
> Sent from the drools - user 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
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/no-loop---lock-on-active-clarification-tp20443036p2...
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.