Re: [rules-users] Similar question: changing operator from < to >

Hi, I just asked a question about conditionally negating conditions, in the DRL... and this question is similar, since it comes down to the lack of a ternary operator. I have rules where "LINK_OPERATOR" is either representative of >, == or <. I am using a rule template, and the problem is that it's not the parameters that change, but the conditions themselves that change based on this LINK_OPERATOR. If I call a function, then my chances for the RETE constant time evaluation is shot. Since this is a very fundamental part of the rules, must I again split my rule template into 3 parts? Then with the negation option, I'll need to double that to 6 templates? And if I have more operators, I'll have to multiply that in too? So, if speed is important, should I split the template? Regards, Daniel -- View this message in context: http://n3.nabble.com/Similar-question-changing-operator-from-to-tp212583p... 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