Re: [rules-users] Working Memory and agenda-group

Of course it's only my guess. I'm not an expert. Please correct me if I'm wrong :) 2011/12/30 Maciej Gowin <maciej.abacus.gowin(a)gmail.com&gt; > It's not the different WorkingMemory. It's all about class name > confusion. It looks like the class type does not match. > Please try to create SomeDefault in standard way, not with 'declare' > statement. It works ok. > > > 2011/12/30 Mike Key <mikey(a)zenbitz.com&gt; > >> I guess that is exactly my confusion :) Why would it be that doing the >> exact same thing, one inserting into working memory from a function and the >> other simply doing it within the RHS of the rule cause downstream rules not >> to fire in the function call case? The rules are both in the same >> agenda-group, both the function example and the insert from the RHS of the >> rule example are simply inserting a new fact into working memory. >> >> It makes it seem like the function call is somehow inserting into a >> *different* working memory, which I'm sure is not the case, but the >> downstream rule does not fire none-the-less. >> >> Thanks for any clarity. >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Mauricio Salatino <salaboy(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote: >> >>> Agenda-groups segment the agenda and not the working memory :) >>> Probably that is part of your confusion. >>> >>> >>> 2011/12/29 Mike Key <mikey(a)zenbitz.com&gt;: >>> > I am a fairly new Drools user and am trying to understand how working >>> memory >>> > is segmented when using agenda groups. I have an agenda-group that >>> has >>> > focus set immediately from the session as follows with a few objects >>> being >>> > inserted: >>> > >>> > ksession.insert(objectA); >>> > ksession.insert(objectB); >>> > ksession.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup("Foo").setFocus(); >>> > >>> > I have 2 rules simplified down to illustrate my confusion. The first >>> rule >>> > simply sets some default values evaluated in the second rule if >>> objectA >>> > exists. In the example that works I set the defaults in the RHS >>> explicitly. >>> > However I want to use these defaults from different agenda-groups, >>> so when >>> > I put them in a function, the second rule never fires, the activation >>> is >>> > created for the first rule but never the second. Can someone tell me >>> why >>> > the use of a function seems to alter the truth of the rule? >>> > >>> > THIS WORKS: >>> > >>> > declare SomeDefault >>> > minValueA : Integer >>> > minValueB : Double >>> > maxValueB : Double >>> > end >>> > >>> > rule "Check Object A and Set Default" >>> > agenda-group "Foo" >>> > salience 100 >>> > when >>> > $a : ObjectA() >>> > then >>> > default = new SomeDefault() >>> > default.minValueA = 100 >>> > default.minValueB = 20.0 >>> > default.maxValueB = 20000.0 >>> > insert(default) >>> > end >>> > >>> > rule "Use the defaults" >>> > agenda-group "Foo" >>> > salience 100 >>> > when >>> > $default : SomeDefault() >>> > then >>> > System.out.println("Default minA=" + $default.minValueA) >>> > end >>> > >>> > THIS DOES NOT WORK: >>> > >>> > declare SomeDefault >>> > minValueA : Integer >>> > minValueB : Double >>> > maxValueB : Double >>> > end >>> > >>> > rule "Check Object A and Set Default" >>> > agenda-group "Foo" >>> > salience 100 >>> > when >>> > $a : ObjectA() >>> > then >>> > insertDefault(drools.getWorkingMemory()) >>> > end >>> > >>> > rule "Use the defaults" >>> > agenda-group "Foo" >>> > salience 90 >>> > when >>> > $default : SomeDefault() >>> > then >>> > System.out.println("Default minA=" + $default.minValueA) >>> > end >>> > >>> > function void insertDefault(WorkingMemory workingMemory) { >>> > SomeDefault default = new SomeDefault(); >>> > default.setMinValueA(100); >>> > default.setMinValueB(20.0); >>> > default.setMaxValueB(20000.0); >>> > workingMemory.insert(default); >>> > } >>> > >>> > In the latter (non-working) example the first rule activates and then >>> drools >>> > returns, it never even attempts to try to fire the second rule. >>> However in >>> > the working example BOTH rules fire as I would expect. I am guessing >>> this >>> > is a simple misunderstanding on my part. Any assistance in >>> understanding >>> > why this nuance doesn't seem to work would be greatly appreciated. >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > MiKey >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > rules-users mailing list >>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com >>> - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com >>> - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org >>> - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar >>> >>> - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio - >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >