> would be equivalent to ::
> act :- a,b,c .
Yes, the implicit conditional operator between patterns is the conjunction (AND).

> Event(this after $b && $b after $a)
If you read the drools manual you saw that all field expressions in drools have a field name as the left operand (note that "this" is a special field name). So you can't say "$b after $a". Nevertheless, even if it was possible to do what you want, it would be awful for performance, because you would be joining all events among themselves and only after joining, would the constraints be applied.

Also, please note that Drools is FOL complete, so any FOL expression can be represented. Please read about the conditional elements too, not only restriction connectives && and ||.

[]s
Edson


2009/8/25 Khalil Hafsi <hafsi@fzi.de>
Hi ,

I am using the last version of drools fusion , what I wanted to achieve is to pack the rules in one "statement" , i.e :

 Event(this after $b && $b after $a)

instead of

Event(this after $b)
Event(this after $a)

that's because I am not limited to the sequence operator , for example when I want to make a disjunction rule :
Cmplx1 :- a OR b

I can't separate the events , but I must write them packed like this ::

 Event(this after $b || $b after this)

One more question :
I assume that the relation between the different statements in a rule is normal conjunction , i.e :

rule "some rule"
when
    a : ...
    b : ...
    c : ...
then
    trigger action "act"
end

would be equivalent to ::
act :- a,b,c .

I hope I am correct ?

Thanks,
Khalil Hafsi






_______________________________________________

rules-users mailing list

rules-users@lists.jboss.org

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





-- 
  Edson Tirelli
  JBoss Drools Core Development
  JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com