Thanks Greg.
>As for lock-on-active, it should be used in conjunction with a
ruleflow-group or agenda-group. It's >basically no-loop for the entire
group, as I understand it. I don't see either a ruleflow-group or
>agenda-group defined for those rules. Did you do that?
- no. I'm not using a ruleflow-group or agenda-group.
1. Even if I dont use agenda-group explicitly, all rules are in "main"
agenda group right. shouldn't we use lock-on-active without explicit
agenda-group or rule-flow group?
I can understand result #1 & #2.
It would be nice if some one clarify result # 3 & #4 of my example. here
both rules have 'update'.
> 4. when lock-on-active for rule "1 maincondition" and no-loop for rule "1
> 3. when lock-on-active for rule "1 precondition" and no-loop for rule "1
> main condition" used, both rule got fired correctly.
> precondition" used, only rule "1 , then only precondition" got executed
> for all facts.
Thanks again!
Greg Barton wrote:
>
> You certainly need no-loop for rule "1 precondition" as it stands because
> the Foo is updaetd, but not in a way that prevents the rule from firing
> again. One way to prevent that would be to put a condition in the rule
> that is the antithesis of some update you make:
>
> rule "1 precondition"
> when
> foo : Foo( preconditionPassedRule not contains "1 precondition", f1 !=
> null, f2 != null)> As for lock-on-active, it should be used in conjunction with a
> then
> foo.addPreconditionPassedRule("1 precondition");
> update(foo)
> end
>
> ruleflow-group or agenda-group. It's basically no-loop for the entire
> group, as I understand it. I don't see either a ruleflow-group or
> agenda-group defined for those rules. Did you do that?
>
> --- On Tue, 11/11/08, techy <techluver007@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: techy <techluver007@gmail.com>
>> Subject: [rules-users] no-loop & lock-on-active clarification
>> To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 10:25 AM
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/no-loop---lock-on-active-clarification-tp20443036p20444712.html>> I tried following rules as given below and result
>> are:(assumes facts which
>> I tried are qualified for both rules)
>>
>> 1. when lock-on-active used with both rule, only rule
>> "1 precondition" got
>> executed for all facts.
>> 2. when no-loop used with both rules, infinite loop
>> 3. when lock-on-active for rule "1 precondition"
>> and no-loop for rule "1
>> main condition" used, both rule got fired correctly.
>> 4. for vice versa of 3 scenario, only rule "1
>> precondition" got executed for
>> all facts.
>> Can someone please clarify about this scenario and also
>> diff between no-loop
>> & lock-on-active? when we should use one and when
>> should not?
>> I went thru documentation and still could not understand
>> the difference.
>>
>> public class Foo
>> {
>> private Set<String> preConditionPassedRules ;
>>
>> private Integer f1;
>> private Integer f2;
>>
>> }
>>
>> rule "1 precondition"
>> salience 100
>>
>> when
>> foo : Foo( f1 != null && f2 != null)
>> then
>> foo.addPreconditionPassedRule("1
>> precondition");
>> update(foo)
>>
>> end
>>
>> rule "1 main condition"
>> salience 100
>>
>> when
>> foo : Foo( preconditionPassedRule contains "1
>> precondition",f1 > 1000,f2
>> < 1000)
>> then
>> #actions
>>
>> end
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/no-loop---lock-on-active-clarification-tp20443036p20443036.html
>> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
>> Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
--
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users