On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:10 AM, FrankVhh
<frank.vanhoenshoven@agserv.eu> wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
Can I push you for a clarification on this statement?
Imho, any of the following reasons is good enough to put a "decision" in
rules
A- The decision logic is likely to be subject to change
B- The decision logic is too complex to implement in a procedural way
C- The decision logic is making sense to business users. (i.e.
non-technical logic)
In this case, option B is opviously way off. But one can only guess
regarding A and C.
Regards,
Frank
laune wrote
>
> Oh my, aren't we a wee bit too dogmatic? I've certainly been known as
> being
> a stickler to style and best practice and what not, but in this particular
> case I'd use a single rule and offload the earth-shaking decision between
> 'Y' and 'N' into a function:
>
> rule x
> when
> samplefact1( $status: status, state == "CA" )
> then
> fact0.setField1( yn( $status) );
> end
>
> Cheers
> -W
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@.jboss
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/setting-different-value-in-consequence-RHS-part-based-on-a-conditional-check-tp3690826p3692750.html