Re: [rules-users] programmatic manipulation of 4.0 salience?

Scott, not sure if it fits your problem, but you may also consider using dynamic saliences. Yesterday I was able to convert 3.x rules to use it worked very well. In my case, I have facts of different sizes (some are collections of other facts, some are individual facts) and in some rules I need to find first MxN pairs (collection facts on both sides), then Mx1 or 1xN pairs, and only then 1x1 pairs. In other rules I need to find first 1x1 pairs, then Mx1 or 1xN pairs and only then MxN. Instead of writting a custom ConflictResolver, what I did was to use one dynamic salience: salience (1000 / (c.size * t.size)) for finding smallest pairs first, and salience (-1000 / (c.size * t.size) for finding the largest pairs first. The 1000 is to get around the fact that saliences are integers and not float/double (afaik) Hope it helps, -- yuri On 8/17/07, Manjax23 <manjunatha.n(a)coreobjects.com&gt; wrote: > Salience salience = new SalienceInteger( Integer.parseInt( salienceText ) ); > rule.setSalience( salience ); > > Cheers, > manjax23 > > > Scott Reed-4 wrote: >> My 3.1 app has a mechanism that allowed the user to change the salience of >> some rules before running >> them, before loading up WorkingMemory. This was quite simple, >> rule.getSalience() returned a rule's >> int salience value and rule.setSalience(int) set it. Now in 4.0 I see >> salience is no longer just an >> int, but a Salience object with a simple constructor and complicated >> getValue(Tuple,WorkingMemory) >> method to access the int value. >> >> It appears to be still easy to set the salience of a rule: >> rule.setSalience( new >> SalienceInteger(int)) but getting the int salience from a Salience object >> seems to have been removed >> from joe-blow coder's reach. >> >> I would be very grateful if someone would provide me with an example that >> gets the int salience >> associated with a rule. I have no idea where or why I need to get the >> Tuple and WorkingMemory. Can I >> just pass nulls in for those two arguments? >> >> Thanks, >> Scott >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/programmatic-manipulation-of-4.0-salience--tf428373... > 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