Re: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem?

Sorry to push Edson, The performance degradation from having the "parental check" in the RHS versus the LHS is (expectedly) terrific. We have thousands of "attributes" relating to different parent objects and having the rule activate for every combination is causing performance problems. Moving the RHS into a LHS "eval" would be no better either. On a different matter, I have successfully installed the source with Maven (thanks Mark) and can debug trunk in Eclipse at home! With kind regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Anstis, Michael (M.) Sent: 14 March 2007 12:28 To: 'Rules Users List' Subject: RE: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? OK, Edson, I will try to check it out (I'm having problems accessing subversion from work so will try from home). Whilst trying to implement a workaround though I may have discovered another problem (which might have been fixed too):- rule "A" when MaterialEntry ( $m : material ) $a2 : Attribute( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number, parent == $m ) $a3 : Attribute( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number, parent == $m ) then System.out.println("Rule A"); //<-- Never fires end rule "B" when MaterialEntry ( $m : material ) $a2 : Attribute( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number ) $a3 : Attribute( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number ) Then if($a2.getParent() == $m && $a3.getParent() == $m) { System.out.println("Rule B"); //<-- Fires } end If the check for "parent" being equal across $m, $a2 and $a3 is in the LHS the rule doesn't activate. However if check is in the RHS the rule is OK. Any thoughts or views (Edson)? Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli Sent: 13 March 2007 22:57 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? Mike, Yes, that is a "shadow fact unwanted side-effect" (nice name for a bug hm? :) ), but I remember fixing something similar as part of another ticket I was working on. Is it possible for you to verify if the problem is happening in trunk? If it is still hapenning, let me know and I will fix it. Thank you, Edson Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: >Hi, > >I am running 3.1-M1 and have (by way of example) two simple rules; A >and B as follows:- > > *rule* "A" > *when* > $a1 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_A, $pa : > number ) > $a2 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_B, $nc : > number ) > $p : Process ( attributesList* contains* $a1, > attributesList* contains* $a2 ) > *then* > * double* txy = doSomeMaths($pa, $nc, $p); > Attribute a =* new* Attribute(Constants.ATTRIBUTES_C, > > txy); > $p.addAttribute(a); > * assertLogical*(a); > * modify*($p); > System.out.println("Rule 'A' fired"); > *end* > > *rule* "B" > *when* > $a1 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_C, $txy : > number) > $p : Process( attributesList* contains* $a1 ) > // <-- Line causing rule not to activate > > *then* > * double* m = doSomeMoreMaths($txy, $p); > System.out.println("Rule 'B' fired"); > *end* > >Process exposes an ArrayList of Attribute objects (each having a >name\value pair). > >When the content of the ArrayList held by Process is added to (Rule >'A') the next rule (Rule 'B') is not being activated. > >Can anybody provide any insight into how best a workaround can be >engineered? > >With kind regards, > >Mike > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - >_______________________________________________ >rules-users mailing list &gt;rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > >