Re: [rules-users] How to track constraint truth [was: Non short circuit ANDing]
On 04/02/2013, Lance <lance.leverich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the gentle reply. My initial reply was made without having
read
your latest example. The "experimental" syntax was what had me getting
anxious, as I already have to fend off the Java developers that want to
"just write the rules in Java" (i.e. they don't want to have to think in a
non-procedural manner).
Keep it up :)
As for the eval() of old, I thought that it was a discouraged practice to
use it; precisely because it was considered to be non-normative in its
approach. Again, it may have just been my interpretation of the
documentation that was out-of-line with the mainstream thinking here.
Up to Drools 5.1.x the constraint syntax was rather restricted, so the
eval() was the last resort, to be used in case the native DRL wouldn't
let you. Meanwhile, distinctions have disappeared, so that "any"
boolean expression should be possible as a constraint, not needing the
eval wrapper.
eval() was (also) discouraged because it wouldn't let the engine use
more efficient fact evaluations by indexing.
-W
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-How-to-track-constraint-tru...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users