Re: [rules-users] Using field values of an ENUM in the decision table
Are you sure you have to have a Memory object inserted as a fact ?
Don't this rule works (not tested and I'm so not a drools expert)
rule "memory"
when
$c : Computer(memory == MEM1 || memory == MEM2 || memory == MEM3)
then
modify($c) { setPrice(MEM1.getValue() };
end
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:50:16 -0700 (PDT), Visu Nageswaran
<visu.nageswaran(a)in.ibm.com> wrote:
I was able to achieve this using a join-column in the decision
table
equivalent to the below rule:
WHEN $m: Memory(value == "512") $c: Computer(memory == $m)
THEN modify($c){ setPrice(100) };
However, a Memory instance needs to be inserted into the session. For
every
discrete valued field, it would then be required for them to be
inserted
into the session to be considered in rule propogation. If there is a
better
way / simpler way, I am very interested. Thanks in advance..
Visu Nageswaran wrote:
>
> Hello, I am posting a simpler version of the actual requirement:
> Class Computer has a field 'memory' of the enum type 'Memory' which
is
> defined over integer values
> - - - - - - - - - -
> public enum Memory{
> MEM1(512), MEM2(1024), MEM3(2048);
> public int value;
> Memory(int i){this.value = i;}
> public int getValue(){return value;}
> }
> - - - - - - - - - -
> There is a requirement to model a decision table between memory and
price
>
> I am looking for the field constraint on the memory field to match to
the
> values:
>
> memory.???--> Price
> 512 --> 100
> 1024 --> 200
> 2048 --> 300
>
> I tried memory.name, memory.name(), memory.value, memory.getValue();
Does
> this have to be done using template expressions say something
like
memory
> == Memory.reverseLookupEnum($param)
>
> Any help, pointers in this regard would be appreciated. thanks.
> -Visu
>