11:18 p.m.
Hello,
I would like to have the rules parent/child structure. I don't want the
child rules to be executed when parent's conditions are true(i.e
consequence is executed) even if child's conditions are true. How Can I
achieve that in drools?
Please clarify.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20260028.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
12:21 a.m.
A combination of higher priority parent rules with a custom agenda filter, activated when
the parent rule fires, that prevents the child rule from firing.
Just a guess.
So, after the child rule is initially prevented from firing, can it be reactivated? If
so, when and under what conditions?
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [rules-users] controling rule execution
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:18 PM
Hello,
I would like to have the rules parent/child structure. I
don't want the
child rules to be executed when parent's conditions
are true(i.e
consequence is executed) even if child's conditions
are true. How Can I
achieve that in drools?
Please clarify.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20260028.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
8:21 a.m.
Another way to do it is a combination of salience and retraction. The
parent rule would have a higher salience value and then retract the
facts in its consequence
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Greg Barton
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:22 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule execution
A combination of higher priority parent rules with a custom agenda
filter, activated when the parent rule fires, that prevents the child
rule from firing.
Just a guess.
So, after the child rule is initially prevented from firing, can it be
reactivated? If so, when and under what conditions?
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [rules-users] controling rule execution
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:18 PM
Hello,
I would like to have the rules parent/child structure. I
don't want the
child rules to be executed when parent's conditions
are true(i.e
consequence is executed) even if child's conditions
are true. How Can I
achieve that in drools?
Please clarify.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20260028.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
8:24 a.m.
Thanks Greg.
child rule should be reactivated if parent's conditions for some other fact
are false.
this should happen for each fact. Parent's condition should decide whether
child rule should be executed or not for each fact. If parent's conditions
are true, then don't execute child rule and vice versa.
Greg Barton wrote:
A combination of higher priority parent rules with a custom agenda filter,
activated when the parent rule fires, that prevents the child rule from
firing.
Just a guess.
So, after the child rule is initially prevented from firing, can it be
reactivated? If so, when and under what conditions?
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [rules-users] controling rule execution
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:18 PM
> Hello,
>
> I would like to have the rules parent/child structure. I
> don't want the
> child rules to be executed when parent's conditions
> are true(i.e
> consequence is executed) even if child's conditions
> are true. How Can I
> achieve that in drools?
> Please clarify.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20260028.html
> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20265921.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
8:54 a.m.
You may consider the other suggestion of retracting the fact(s) that would trigger the
child rule. It's the more "natural" way of going about it.
What's driving this design choice?
--- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule execution
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 8:24 AM
Thanks Greg.
child rule should be reactivated if parent's conditions
for some other fact
are false.
this should happen for each fact. Parent's condition
should decide whether
child rule should be executed or not for each fact. If
parent's conditions
are true, then don't execute child rule and vice versa.
Greg Barton wrote:
>
> A combination of higher priority parent rules with a
custom agenda filter,
> activated when the parent rule fires, that prevents
the child rule from
> firing.
>
> Just a guess.
>
> So, after the child rule is initially prevented from
firing, can it be
> reactivated? If so, when and under what conditions?
>
> --- On Thu, 10/30/08, techy
<techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
>> Subject: [rules-users] controling rule execution
>> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:18 PM
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to have the rules parent/child
structure. I
>> don't want the
>> child rules to be executed when parent's
conditions
>> are true(i.e
>> consequence is executed) even if child's
conditions
>> are true. How Can I
>> achieve that in drools?
>> Please clarify.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20260028.html
>> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive
at
>> Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20265921.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
2:44 p.m.
Thanks Greg and Joe.
I think i should have mentioned this before.
I can also have other parent rule node in the tree structure which tests
against same fact. Each parent rule node should only control its child rule
nodes, but not other parent rule node and child rule node.
If I do retract, won't it affect other parent rule node?
Greg Barton wrote:
You may consider the other suggestion of retracting the fact(s) that would
trigger the child rule. It's the more "natural" way of going about it.
What's driving this design choice?
--- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule execution
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 8:24 AM
> Thanks Greg.
> child rule should be reactivated if parent's conditions
> for some other fact
> are false.
> this should happen for each fact. Parent's condition
> should decide whether
> child rule should be executed or not for each fact. If
> parent's conditions
> are true, then don't execute child rule and vice versa.
>
>
> Greg Barton wrote:
> >
> > A combination of higher priority parent rules with a
> custom agenda filter,
> > activated when the parent rule fires, that prevents
> the child rule from
> > firing.
> >
> > Just a guess.
> >
> > So, after the child rule is initially prevented from
> firing, can it be
> > reactivated? If so, when and under what conditions?
> >
> > --- On Thu, 10/30/08, techy
> <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
> >> Subject: [rules-users] controling rule execution
> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:18 PM
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I would like to have the rules parent/child
> structure. I
> >> don't want the
> >> child rules to be executed when parent's
> conditions
> >> are true(i.e
> >> consequence is executed) even if child's
> conditions
> >> are true. How Can I
> >> achieve that in drools?
> >> Please clarify.
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20260028.html
> >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive
> at
> >> Nabble.com.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rules-users mailing list
> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20265921.html
> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20272962.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
3:37 p.m.
Yep, it would affect all rules that could match on those facts.
You could have a control fact per child rule that could potentially match. The child rule
would include an existence check for that fact in it's conditions. The parent rule
would retract the fact to prevent the child rule from firing.
A bit more clunky than the custom agenda filter approach, but:
1) I haven't tested the custom agenda filter thing, so I'm just guessing it'd
work. (I'm pretty sure it would, though.)
2) It would be more portable across other rule engines. (If that's important to you.)
--- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule execution
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 2:44 PM
Thanks Greg and Joe.
I think i should have mentioned this before.
I can also have other parent rule node in the tree
structure which tests
against same fact. Each parent rule node should only
control its child rule
nodes, but not other parent rule node and child rule node.
If I do retract, won't it affect other parent rule
node?
Greg Barton wrote:
>
> You may consider the other suggestion of retracting
the fact(s) that would
> trigger the child rule. It's the more
"natural" way of going about it.
>
> What's driving this design choice?
>
> --- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy
<techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule
execution
>> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 8:24 AM
>> Thanks Greg.
>> child rule should be reactivated if parent's
conditions
>> for some other fact
>> are false.
>> this should happen for each fact. Parent's
condition
>> should decide whether
>> child rule should be executed or not for each
fact. If
>> parent's conditions
>> are true, then don't execute child rule and
vice versa.
>>
>>
>> Greg Barton wrote:
>> >
>> > A combination of higher priority parent rules
with a
>> custom agenda filter,
>> > activated when the parent rule fires, that
prevents
>> the child rule from
>> > firing.
>> >
>> > Just a guess.
>> >
>> > So, after the child rule is initially
prevented from
>> firing, can it be
>> > reactivated? If so, when and under what
conditions?
>> >
>> > --- On Thu, 10/30/08, techy
>> <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: techy
<techluver007(a)gmail.com>
>> >> Subject: [rules-users] controling rule
execution
>> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> >> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:18
PM
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> I would like to have the rules
parent/child
>> structure. I
>> >> don't want the
>> >> child rules to be executed when
parent's
>> conditions
>> >> are true(i.e
>> >> consequence is executed) even if
child's
>> conditions
>> >> are true. How Can I
>> >> achieve that in drools?
>> >> Please clarify.
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>>
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20260028.html
>> >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list
archive
>> at
>> >> Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
_______________________________________________
>> >> rules-users mailing list
>> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> >>
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
_______________________________________________
>> > rules-users mailing list
>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> >
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20265921.html
>> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive
at
>> Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20272962.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
9:37 a.m.
activation-group allows you to define mutually exclusive groups of rules
where when one fire, it cancel the others.
[]s
Edson
2008/10/31 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
Yep, it would affect all rules that could match on those facts.
You could have a control fact per child rule that could potentially match.
The child rule would include an existence check for that fact in it's
conditions. The parent rule would retract the fact to prevent the child
rule from firing.
A bit more clunky than the custom agenda filter approach, but:
1) I haven't tested the custom agenda filter thing, so I'm just guessing
it'd work. (I'm pretty sure it would, though.)
2) It would be more portable across other rule engines. (If that's
important to you.)
--- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule execution
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 2:44 PM
> Thanks Greg and Joe.
> I think i should have mentioned this before.
> I can also have other parent rule node in the tree
> structure which tests
> against same fact. Each parent rule node should only
> control its child rule
> nodes, but not other parent rule node and child rule node.
>
> If I do retract, won't it affect other parent rule
> node?
>
>
> Greg Barton wrote:
> >
> > You may consider the other suggestion of retracting
> the fact(s) that would
> > trigger the child rule. It's the more
> "natural" way of going about it.
> >
> > What's driving this design choice?
> >
> > --- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy
> <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule
> execution
> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 8:24 AM
> >> Thanks Greg.
> >> child rule should be reactivated if parent's
> conditions
> >> for some other fact
> >> are false.
> >> this should happen for each fact. Parent's
> condition
> >> should decide whether
> >> child rule should be executed or not for each
> fact. If
> >> parent's conditions
> >> are true, then don't execute child rule and
> vice versa.
> >>
> >>
> >> Greg Barton wrote:
> >> >
> >> > A combination of higher priority parent rules
> with a
> >> custom agenda filter,
> >> > activated when the parent rule fires, that
> prevents
> >> the child rule from
> >> > firing.
> >> >
> >> > Just a guess.
> >> >
> >> > So, after the child rule is initially
> prevented from
> >> firing, can it be
> >> > reactivated? If so, when and under what
> conditions?
> >> >
> >> > --- On Thu, 10/30/08, techy
> >> <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> From: techy
> <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
> >> >> Subject: [rules-users] controling rule
> execution
> >> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:18
> PM
> >> >> Hello,
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to have the rules
> parent/child
> >> structure. I
> >> >> don't want the
> >> >> child rules to be executed when
> parent's
> >> conditions
> >> >> are true(i.e
> >> >> consequence is executed) even if
> child's
> >> conditions
> >> >> are true. How Can I
> >> >> achieve that in drools?
> >> >> Please clarify.
> >> >> --
> >> >> View this message in context:
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20260028.html
> >> >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list
> archive
> >> at
> >> >> Nabble.com.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> _______________________________________________
> >> >> rules-users mailing list
> >> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >>
> >>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> _______________________________________________
> >> > rules-users mailing list
> >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20265921.html
> >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive
> at
> >> Nabble.com.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rules-users mailing list
> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20272962.html
> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
4:41 p.m.
Thanks Edson.
If Parent rule does not fire, I want all of child rules to get fired. As per
my understanding, If I use activation-group, Then It can only fire one child
at max(which is not what I want.)
Please clarify this.
Edson Tirelli-3 wrote:
activation-group allows you to define mutually exclusive groups of
rules
where when one fire, it cancel the others.
[]s
Edson
2008/10/31 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
> Yep, it would affect all rules that could match on those facts.
>
> You could have a control fact per child rule that could potentially
> match.
> The child rule would include an existence check for that fact in it's
> conditions. The parent rule would retract the fact to prevent the child
> rule from firing.
>
> A bit more clunky than the custom agenda filter approach, but:
>
> 1) I haven't tested the custom agenda filter thing, so I'm just guessing
> it'd work. (I'm pretty sure it would, though.)
> 2) It would be more portable across other rule engines. (If that's
> important to you.)
>
> --- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule execution
> > To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 2:44 PM
> > Thanks Greg and Joe.
> > I think i should have mentioned this before.
> > I can also have other parent rule node in the tree
> > structure which tests
> > against same fact. Each parent rule node should only
> > control its child rule
> > nodes, but not other parent rule node and child rule node.
> >
> > If I do retract, won't it affect other parent rule
> > node?
> >
> >
> > Greg Barton wrote:
> > >
> > > You may consider the other suggestion of retracting
> > the fact(s) that would
> > > trigger the child rule. It's the more
> > "natural" way of going about it.
> > >
> > > What's driving this design choice?
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy
> > <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule
> > execution
> > >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > >> Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 8:24 AM
> > >> Thanks Greg.
> > >> child rule should be reactivated if parent's
> > conditions
> > >> for some other fact
> > >> are false.
> > >> this should happen for each fact. Parent's
> > condition
> > >> should decide whether
> > >> child rule should be executed or not for each
> > fact. If
> > >> parent's conditions
> > >> are true, then don't execute child rule and
> > vice versa.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Greg Barton wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > A combination of higher priority parent rules
> > with a
> > >> custom agenda filter,
> > >> > activated when the parent rule fires, that
> > prevents
> > >> the child rule from
> > >> > firing.
> > >> >
> > >> > Just a guess.
> > >> >
> > >> > So, after the child rule is initially
> > prevented from
> > >> firing, can it be
> > >> > reactivated? If so, when and under what
> > conditions?
> > >> >
> > >> > --- On Thu, 10/30/08, techy
> > >> <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> From: techy
> > <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
> > >> >> Subject: [rules-users] controling rule
> > execution
> > >> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > >> >> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:18
> > PM
> > >> >> Hello,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I would like to have the rules
> > parent/child
> > >> structure. I
> > >> >> don't want the
> > >> >> child rules to be executed when
> > parent's
> > >> conditions
> > >> >> are true(i.e
> > >> >> consequence is executed) even if
> > child's
> > >> conditions
> > >> >> are true. How Can I
> > >> >> achieve that in drools?
> > >> >> Please clarify.
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> View this message in context:
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20260028.html
> > >> >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list
> > archive
> > >> at
> > >> >> Nabble.com.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > >> >> rules-users mailing list
> > >> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > rules-users mailing list
> > >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > >> >
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> View this message in context:
> > >>
> >
> http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20265921.html
> > >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive
> > at
> > >> Nabble.com.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> rules-users mailing list
> > >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > >>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20272962.html
> > Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
> > Nabble.com.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20332870.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
6:01 p.m.
Your understanding is correct. So activation-group does not solve your
problem.
[]s
Edson
2008/11/4 techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
Thanks Edson.
If Parent rule does not fire, I want all of child rules to get fired. As
per
my understanding, If I use activation-group, Then It can only fire one
child
at max(which is not what I want.)
Please clarify this.
Edson Tirelli-3 wrote:
>
> activation-group allows you to define mutually exclusive groups of
> rules
> where when one fire, it cancel the others.
>
> []s
> Edson
>
> 2008/10/31 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
>
>> Yep, it would affect all rules that could match on those facts.
>>
>> You could have a control fact per child rule that could potentially
>> match.
>> The child rule would include an existence check for that fact in it's
>> conditions. The parent rule would retract the fact to prevent the child
>> rule from firing.
>>
>> A bit more clunky than the custom agenda filter approach, but:
>>
>> 1) I haven't tested the custom agenda filter thing, so I'm just
guessing
>> it'd work. (I'm pretty sure it would, though.)
>> 2) It would be more portable across other rule engines. (If that's
>> important to you.)
>>
>> --- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule execution
>> > To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 2:44 PM
>> > Thanks Greg and Joe.
>> > I think i should have mentioned this before.
>> > I can also have other parent rule node in the tree
>> > structure which tests
>> > against same fact. Each parent rule node should only
>> > control its child rule
>> > nodes, but not other parent rule node and child rule node.
>> >
>> > If I do retract, won't it affect other parent rule
>> > node?
>> >
>> >
>> > Greg Barton wrote:
>> > >
>> > > You may consider the other suggestion of retracting
>> > the fact(s) that would
>> > > trigger the child rule. It's the more
>> > "natural" way of going about it.
>> > >
>> > > What's driving this design choice?
>> > >
>> > > --- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy
>> > <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> From: techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
>> > >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule
>> > execution
>> > >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > >> Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 8:24 AM
>> > >> Thanks Greg.
>> > >> child rule should be reactivated if parent's
>> > conditions
>> > >> for some other fact
>> > >> are false.
>> > >> this should happen for each fact. Parent's
>> > condition
>> > >> should decide whether
>> > >> child rule should be executed or not for each
>> > fact. If
>> > >> parent's conditions
>> > >> are true, then don't execute child rule and
>> > vice versa.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Greg Barton wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > A combination of higher priority parent rules
>> > with a
>> > >> custom agenda filter,
>> > >> > activated when the parent rule fires, that
>> > prevents
>> > >> the child rule from
>> > >> > firing.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Just a guess.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > So, after the child rule is initially
>> > prevented from
>> > >> firing, can it be
>> > >> > reactivated? If so, when and under what
>> > conditions?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --- On Thu, 10/30/08, techy
>> > >> <techluver007(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> From: techy
>> > <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
>> > >> >> Subject: [rules-users] controling rule
>> > execution
>> > >> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > >> >> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:18
>> > PM
>> > >> >> Hello,
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> I would like to have the rules
>> > parent/child
>> > >> structure. I
>> > >> >> don't want the
>> > >> >> child rules to be executed when
>> > parent's
>> > >> conditions
>> > >> >> are true(i.e
>> > >> >> consequence is executed) even if
>> > child's
>> > >> conditions
>> > >> >> are true. How Can I
>> > >> >> achieve that in drools?
>> > >> >> Please clarify.
>> > >> >> --
>> > >> >> View this message in context:
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> >
>>
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20260028.html
>> > >> >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list
>> > archive
>> > >> at
>> > >> >> Nabble.com.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > >> >> rules-users mailing list
>> > >> >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > >> > rules-users mailing list
>> > >> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > >> >
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> View this message in context:
>> > >>
>> >
>>
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20265921.html
>> > >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive
>> > at
>> > >> Nabble.com.
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> rules-users mailing list
>> > >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > >>
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > rules-users mailing list
>> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> >
>>
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20272962.html
>> > Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
>> > Nabble.com.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rules-users mailing list
>> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> JBoss Drools Core Development
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20332870.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
7:18 p.m.
Thanks Mark. that's sad to know :-(
I have serious of use cases to applied against set of huge data daily. use
cases can be in the tree structure(parent/child relationship).
If the data passed parent use case(i.e parent condition is not met), then it
should go thru child usecases. I want to happen this recursively till last
child in the tree, but in a specific order.
I was going thru agenda group,activation group etc as advised. looks like i
could not achieve..
then i was going thru documentation and came across rule flow and sequential
mode. But could not make any decision since I'm new to drools. It would be
great If someone shed some light on this?
1. Can I achieve this work flow using rule flow?
2. What about sequential mode? Can I achieve using it?
3. Should I not be using drools or any rule engine at all for my
requirement?
Thanks
techy wrote:
Hello,
I would like to have the rules parent/child structure. I don't want the
child rules to be executed when parent's conditions are true(i.e
consequence is executed) even if child's conditions are true. How Can I
achieve that in drools?
Please clarify.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20334779.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
7:51 p.m.
Sequential mode is something completely different, so don't bother about
it right now. From your description, ruleflow seems to fit the requirements.
Organize your rules in groups, and have a split node decide which path to
follow in your rule flow... as an additional bonus of this approach, you can
use lock-on-active to prevent recursion.
Ordering of rules is not really a criteria for deciding for or against
the use of a rules engine. So, I would say, before doing anything else, take
a look at ruleflow. Also, please note that split nodes can take conditions
in the exact same way as a rule LHS to decide which path to follow, giving
you a lot of expressiveness power for your "flow decisions".
[]s
Edson
2008/11/4 techy <techluver007(a)gmail.com>
Thanks Mark. that's sad to know :-(
I have serious of use cases to applied against set of huge data daily. use
cases can be in the tree structure(parent/child relationship).
If the data passed parent use case(i.e parent condition is not met), then
it
should go thru child usecases. I want to happen this recursively till last
child in the tree, but in a specific order.
I was going thru agenda group,activation group etc as advised. looks like i
could not achieve..
then i was going thru documentation and came across rule flow and
sequential
mode. But could not make any decision since I'm new to drools. It would be
great If someone shed some light on this?
1. Can I achieve this work flow using rule flow?
2. What about sequential mode? Can I achieve using it?
3. Should I not be using drools or any rule engine at all for my
requirement?
Thanks
techy wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to have the rules parent/child structure. I don't want the
> child rules to be executed when parent's conditions are true(i.e
> consequence is executed) even if child's conditions are true. How Can I
> achieve that in drools?
> Please clarify.
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20334779.html
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
5896
days inactive
5901
days old
11 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Edson Tirelli -
Greg Barton -
Joe White -
techy