Re: [rules-users] Partial Unification / Derivation of Facts?

How would I go about implementing the first part to your solution? (where you say "if it is the 'matching' rule that defines the parameter set you can define the parameters literally in that rule") I am not aware of any syntax that would permit this type of behavior--that would allow me to (in the matching rule's condition) literally define the values the rules deriving "A" should use, instead of the deriving rule matching it against working memory (ie to indicate from the matching rule that the derivation rule should always use a certain value as a condition rather than matching against working memory). Given: rule "derivation rule" when $prm1 : Param1() then insert( new A($prm1) ); end , the following indicates that working memory should be pattern matched for an "A" with getParam1() == new Param1("val"). Of course, this is not my desired functionality: rule "matching rule 1" when A( param1 == new Param1("val") ) then // do w/e end What I would like to see is--given the "derivation rule" above--something like this: rule "matching rule 2" when $a : A( param1 := new Param1("val") ) then // do something with $a end ^ Ideally this would tell the rule "derivation rule" to attempt to derive A(), but under the assumption that param1 should be initialized with "new Param1("val")" as opposed to strictly matching for it in WM. However, the more I look at this, more it seems like backward chaining is necessary... -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Partial-Unification-Derivation-of-Facts... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.