Re: [rules-users] Salience

Either you define a rule covering all "else" cases, which, in your case, could be rule "#catch-all" when $i : Item( type != 1 && != 2 ) then retract ($i) // do something... end or you do rely on salience, which, in this case is not quite so "bad practice". It depends: if the "catch all" is there to detect unexpected data, it's ok; if it is there just to cover several cases the programmer is too lazy to code in the ordinary way, then it might be considered "bad practice". -W On 19 January 2011 19:17, huionn <huionn(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > If I have a rule like below: > > rule "#1" > when > $i : Item(type == 1) > then > retract ($i) > // do something... > end > > rule "#2" > when > $i : Item(type == 2) > then > retract ($i) > // do something... > end > > // to handle other type of Item > rule "#catch-all" > salience -10 > when > $i : Item() > then > retract ($i) > // do something... > end > > As it is known, reliance on salience is bad practice and its order is not > guaranteed (as shown in Sudoku example). > > My question is: what is the simple and good practice to emulate "else" (rule > "#catch-all") without reliance on salience? It seems ruleflow is not > applicable here as well. > > > Thanks and best regards. > -- > View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Salience-tp2289179p22... > 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 > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users