It's getting closer now but still has one problem that it reports for a pattern match where there's an EventB with same index value in between.
If there may be two EventA with the same timestamp, additional
constraints may be necessary, and
after may have to be used with a start time of 0ms:
$a1: EventA( $index : index )
$a2: EventA( this != $a1 && after[0ms] $a1, index == $index )
$a3: EventA( this != $a1 && != $a2 && after[0ms] $a2, index == $index )
-W
2010/10/26 赵侃侃 <kevin223@gmail.com>:
> Hello,
> Hello,
> I just tried this rule, but it doesn't seem to work as expected.
> What I have now is every time I have an EventA received then a pattern is
> reported matched no matter whether any of the other constrains is met.
> Any ideas?
> Best Regards,
> Kevin Zhao
>
> 2010/10/26 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis@gmail.com>
>>
>> You could try this too; if you don't want lots of new attributes for your
>> model:-
>>
>> rule "three A"
>> when
>> $a1: EventA( $index : index )
>> $a2: EventA( index == $index )
>> $a3: EventA( index == $index )
>> not PatternConsumer( name == 'AAA', events contain $a1 || contais $a2 ||
>> contains $a3)
>> not EventB( this after[0ms] $a1 && before[0ms] $a3, index == $index )
>> then
>> // ... match
>> PatternConsumer pc = new PatternConsumer("AAA", $a1, $a2, $a3 );
>> insert(pc);
>> end
>>
>>
>> 2010/10/25 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Giving those other rules a higher salience is one way, but I think
>>> it is better to add a boolean field "usedForAAA" to class EventA.
>>>
>>> rule "three A"
>>> when
>>> $a1: EventA( $index : index, usedForAAA == false )
>>> $a2: EventA( index == $index, usedForAAA == false )
>>> $a3: EventA( index == $index, usedForAAA == false )
>>> not EventB( this after[0ms] $a1 && before[0ms] $a3, index == $index )
>>> then
>>> // ... match
>>> modify( $a1 ){ setUsedForAAA( true ) }
>>> modify( $a2 ){ setUsedForAAA( true ) }
>>> modify( $a3 ){ setUsedForAAA( true ) }
>>> end
>>>
>>> -W
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/10/25 赵侃侃 <kevin223@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Wolfgang,
>>>> It now starts to make sense to me. However, is it possible that I don't
>>>> retract those matched eventA? All those events might be used to evaluate
>>>> against other rules.
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>> Kevin Zhao
>>>> 2010/10/25 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume you are using Fusion, using a session clock so that temporal
>>>>> operators are available.
>>>>>
>>>>> rule "three A"
>>>>> when
>>>>> $a1: EventA( $index : index )
>>>>> $a2: EventA( index == $index )
>>>>> $a3: EventA( index == $index )
>>>>> not EventB( this after[0ms] $a1 && before[0ms] $a3, index == $index )
>>>>> then
>>>>> // ... match
>>>>> retract( $a1 );
>>>>> retract( $a2 );
>>>>> retract( $a3 );
>>>>> end
>>>>>
>>>>> -W
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/10/25 赵侃侃 <kevin223@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>> I'm still quite new to the drools stuffs just getting the examples
>>>>>> running. I'm sorry if my question is too basic.
>>>>>> I have a system that will continuously to receive events sent from
>>>>>> some other system. Basically I have two types of events, eventA and eventB.
>>>>>> Both eventA and eventB have two properties, index and timestamp.
>>>>>> What I want is to capture a pattern to meet the following conditions
>>>>>> 1. every 3 consecutive eventsA without any eventB in between having a
>>>>>> same index value ordering by their timestamp.
>>>>>> 2. all events in a matched pattern will have the same value of
>>>>>> property index.
>>>>>> 3. if a pattern is matched, any of the events in this pattern should
>>>>>> not be used again for a new matching.
>>>>>> there are some examples below, the number after a colon stands for the
>>>>>> value of its index number and assume those events are already ordered by
>>>>>> their timestamp.
>>>>>> eventB:2 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventB:3
>>>>>> --------- one successful match, we have three eventA with same index value
>>>>>> 1 in a row
>>>>>> eventB:2 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventB:1 eventA:1
>>>>>> --------- no match because there's an eventB in between
>>>>>> eventB:2 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventB:2 eventA:1
>>>>>> --------- one successful match because the in-between eventB has a
>>>>>> different index value
>>>>>> eventA:1 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventA:1 eventA:1
>>>>>> --------- only one match, because once matched, the events can not be used
>>>>>> for a second match again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just don't know how to write a rule like this. Is there anyone who
>>>>>> can shed some lights on?
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> rules-users mailing list
>>>>>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rules-users mailing list
>>>>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rules-users mailing list
>>>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-users mailing list
>>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users