Re: [rules-users] Specific Agenda strategy to control which rulesto fire

Hi Wolfgang, I'm interested with your reply and am trying to better understand it (although the use-case has nothing to do with what I do!) The Score class has a constructor taking Deal and level (assume to be akin to "priority" in the original post); however your example Fact insertions exclude level for the Score Fact. I assume Score's level should be initially set to the highest (most granular) level; e.g. 2 in the example cited (ranging from 0-2)? It's good to see and understand other's approaches. Cheers, Mike ------------------------------ *From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Wolfgang Laun *Sent:* 29 October 2009 07:09 *To:* Rules Users List *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Specific Agenda strategy to control which rulesto fire I don't think you should consider an agenda strategy for this. Add a simple class: class Score{ int level; int coun; Deal deal; Book book; Score( Deal deal, int level ){...} } and insert an instance along with the Deal to be classified: insert( deal ); insert( new Score( deal ) ); Rules for level 2 would be written according to: rule "trader and product" salience 10 when $s : Score( level == 2, $d : deal ) Deal( this == $d, trader=="Alex", product == "GOOG" ) then $s.setCount( $s.getCount() + 1 ); $s.setBook( "B2" ); end Then you'll need a couple of rules handling success and failure: rule "post level success" salience 5 when $s : Score( $l : level, count == 1, $d : deal, $b : book ) then assign $d to $b, retract $d retract( $s ); end rule "post level failure" salience 5 when $s : Score( $l : level, count != 1 ) then modify( $s ){ setLevel( $l - 1 ); } end Rules for level 1 would also be at salience 10. A rule for level == 0 should catch Deals "gone down" through all levels. -W 2009/10/28 Costigliola Joel (EXT) <joel.costigliola-ext(a)natixis.com&gt; > Hello all, > > > > I need some help to to set a specific Agenda strategy in order to control > finely which activated rules will be fired. > > > > Problem context : > > ----------------- > > My company is a bank where traders are making deals on markets, these > deals must be classified in book, this is what we call “booking process”. > > Booking is done according to booking criteria : which trader has made the > deal ? on which product ? wich market ? etc … > > A booking rule defines a set of criteria and the target book where the > deal will classified, it also has a priority, note that it is ok that two > booking rule have same priority. > > I want to implement booking rule as Drools rule. > > Several booking rule can be applied to a deal, in that case choosing the > right booking rule to fire depends on the following algorithm : > > - look all the activated booking rule of the highest priority, > > --- if there is a unique rule apply it > > --- if there is no unique rule (0 rule or more than one), look at rules of > a lesser priority and apply the same logic. > > > > Next section is an example that will clear things (I hope). > > > > Example : > > --------- > > A deal D1 has been done by Alex on NY market to buy Google stocks. > > We have 3 booking rules : > > - BR1 : criteria = trader=Alex / book = B1 > > - BR2 : criteria = trader=Alex and product = google stock / book = B2 > > As BR2 is more precise than BR1, il will matches the deal and book it in > B1 > > If the deal was on another product, BR1 would have been applied. > > > > Things gets more complicated when 2 rules of same priority can be applied. > > > Let's imagine we add the following booking rule > > - BR3 : criteria = trader=Alex and market = NY / book = B3 > > We have a problem to book D1 since BR2 and BR3 can be applied but have > same priority. > > We can't choose one over the other thus we must apply a less > precise/prioritary rule (if unique at its own precision level). > > In my example, that would lead to apply BR1. > > > > Question : > > ---------- > > If I define BR1,BR2,BR3 as Drools rules, how can I tell Drools : > > - to execute a rule only if there is no other active rule with same > precision that could be applied ? > > - to look for a unique matching rule with less precision level ? > > > > I think it's the Agenda responsibility to take this decision, but I don't > know how implement that. > > Can you give some advices on that ? > > > > Thanks for your lights in advance, > > Regards, > > > > Joel > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Ce courriel et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et peuvent > être couverts par un privilège ou une protection légale. Il est établi à > l’attention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation de ce courriel > non conforme à sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale > ou partielle, est interdite, sauf autorisation expresse préalable. Toutes > opinions exprimées dans ce courriel ne sauraient nécessairement refléter > celle de Natixis, de ses filiales. Elles sont aussi susceptibles de > modification sans notification préalable. Si vous recevez ce courriel par > erreur, merci de le détruire et d’en avertir immédiatement l’expéditeur. > L’Internet ne permettant pas d’assurer l’intégrité de ce courriel, Natixis > décline toute responsabilité s’il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié et > chaque destinataire qui utilise ce mode de communication est supposé en > accepter les risques. > > This email and any attachment are confidential and may be legally > privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. It is intended only for > the stated addressee(s) and access to it by any other person(s) is > unauthorised. Any use, dissemination or disclosure not in accordance with > its purpose, either in whole or in part, is prohibited without our prior > formal approval. Any opinion expressed in this email may not necessarily > reflect the opinion of Natixis, its affiliates. It may also be subject to > change without prior notice. If you are not an addressee, you must not > disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use or rely on the information > contained in this email. If you have received it in error, please inform us > immediately and delete all copies. The Internet can not guarantee the > integrity of this email therefore Natixis shall not be liable for the email > if altered, changed or falsified and anyone who communicates with us by > e-mail is taken to accept these risks. > > ------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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