I agree with your points, Steve.
I know this solution will require certain "statements" on the RHS which I
am trying to avoid due to the fact that the "business team" is authorizing
the rules. But I will keep that as an option.
Thanks
Sean
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Stephen Masters <stephen.masters(a)me.com>wrote:
Something to consider, which I have used for some rules is that
instead of
those rules making a 'decision' they can insert a restriction fact.
You can then create technical rules, which match on those restriction
facts.
Also, it's very simple to write code to look at the facts in the working
memory, so you can establish what date range a restriction applies to. Much
easier than examining the LHS of rules.
Steve
On 30 Jul 2013, at 20:49, Sean Su <sean.x.su(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Our rules will be using "Date" heavily when making decisions. When the
LHS involving dates is evaluated "true", decision will be made.
>
> Meanwhile, from prediction point of view, we want to know when the LHS
would be evaluated to false, with the changes made to the date fields
(forward to the future). Therefore this becomes prediction - what is the
future date that would cause the LHS to be false.
>
> Question to the list:
> has anyone explored the possibility of using the same set of rules to
achieve both tasks?
>
> If there is no tools automatically doing this in Drools (I doubt there
is), I am thinking to build a tool to parse the rules and then
auto-generate the prediction rules based on the "decision" rules. Is this
the right direction?
>
> Any inputs will be appreciated.
>
> thanks
>
> Sean
> _______________________________________________
> 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