Hi Natraj,
In
your particular case I think the problem is caused by a cross-product setting in
Drools.
I think, in older versions two patterns using the same
Object type, expect it to be the same (by reference) whereas in newer versions
(by default) the objects are different.
I think there might be a setting to control this
behaviour (in the older version). Edson, Mark - I can't remember the specifics.
Any ideas to avoid a search of the newsgroup?
Lots of thinking!
With kind regards,
Mike
Hi Starke,
Thanks a lot for your inputs. Apart from being able to debug using your
stuff, my main concern is that a simple declaration is making the rule not to
fire. Why is that so?
I am pretty sure, when i remove that particular line the fact which is
passed passes the condition.
The Drools documentation has a clear example which does the same.
Any help in this regard will highly be appreciated.
Thanks
Natraj
On 7/18/07, Dr. Gernot
Starke <gs@gernotstarke.de>
wrote:
Hi
Natraj,
I wrote up a few tactics to (successfully) debug
rules:
http://rbs.gernotstarke.de/faq/faq/faq-devel.html
It's
neither finished nor complete - but try it out...
(test both conditions
with one rule for each of them,
test for the existence of the appropriate
facts,
include a catchall-rule which prints all facts from
wm.)
regards,
Gernot
> Hi, I am using Drools 3.0.6,
and facing a peculiar problem.
>
> My rule:
>
>
*
>
> rule* "Calculate Business profit,1"*
> **salience*
1000
>
> *when
>
> **EMIAgainstProperty ( BP1 :
refBP1 )
> *emi : EMIAgainstProperty ( businessProfit2 > BP1
)
>
> *then* *
> *System.out.println(" BP "+(
emi.getBusinessProfit1
> ()+emi.getBusinessProfit2())/2);*
>
*emi.setBusinessProfit((emi.getBusinessProfit1
>
()+emi.getBusinessProfit2())/2);*
> **end*
>
>
**
>
> The above line in bold inside the condition part seem to
create problem
> for
> rule evaluation. WHen i have this, the
rule does not show up in the Agenda
> view, hence i dont see the
console print in the action part. As soon as i
> remove this line and
replace BP1 with 1.5 in the second line, i see the
> rule
>
being fired.
>
> As far as i understand, I am doing a
declaration to set refBP1 an object
> attribute to BP1, which i later
use.What is that i am missing here? My
> fact
> has proper
getter and setters for refBP1 attribute.
>
>
>
>
Thanks
>
> Natraj
>
_______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing
list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
--
Dr. Gernot Starke
Willi-Lauf Allee 43, D-50858
Köln
Tel. +49 (0) 177 - 728 2570
Mail: gs@gernotstarke.de
http://www.gernotstarke.de
http://www.arc42.de
_______________________________________________
rules-users
mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users