6:50 p.m.
I'm trying to find a good technique for updating specific facts in working
memory. What I'm currently doing is something like this:
Rule "Update Amount"
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
charge : Charge()
then
Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
update(amountFact);
end
The update statement causes an infinite loop.
I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1 charge, but not if there
are more than one.
Any help with solutions or strategies would be much appreciated.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
7:29 p.m.
1) Do you want to apply all Charges in working memory to all "Amount" Facts? I
ask because the rule is a cartesian join (i.e. no relation between matched objects) and
that sometimes performs in ways users don't expect. (i.e. all combinations of objects
that match the conditions are affected by the rule)
2) Can you add a property to the Charge object? Then you could use a boolean named
"applied" to prevent future matches.
Rule "Update Amount"
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
charge : Charge(applied == false)
then
Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
update(amountFact);
charge.setApplied(true);
update(charge);
end
If a charge could be applied to multiple Facts you could maintain an "appliedTo"
list of Facts in the Charge, and check that instead of a simple boolean.
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
Subject: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 11:50 AM
I'm trying to find a good technique for updating
specific facts in working
memory. What I'm currently doing is something like
this:
Rule "Update Amount"
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
charge : Charge()
then
Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
update(amountFact);
end
The update statement causes an infinite loop.
I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1 charge,
but not if there
are more than one.
Any help with solutions or strategies would be much
appreciated.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
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
8:55 p.m.
Greg,
1) Yes, in this case I'm looking for the cartesian join.
2) No, I can't add a property to Charge as it's part of our corp Object
Model.
However, I could create a third object that manages whether the Charge has
been processed which works just fine. Unless there is a simpler strategy /
technique, I'll go with that.
Do you know of any way to keep the rule from being put back on the agenda
when amountFact is updated? I want other rules to know that it's been
updated, just not the rule that made the change.
Dan
Greg Barton wrote:
1) Do you want to apply all Charges in working memory to all "Amount"
Facts? I ask because the rule is a cartesian join (i.e. no relation
between matched objects) and that sometimes performs in ways users don't
expect. (i.e. all combinations of objects that match the conditions are
affected by the rule)
2) Can you add a property to the Charge object? Then you could use a
boolean named "applied" to prevent future matches.
Rule "Update Amount"
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
charge : Charge(applied == false)
then
Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
update(amountFact);
charge.setApplied(true);
update(charge);
end
If a charge could be applied to multiple Facts you could maintain an
"appliedTo" list of Facts in the Charge, and check that instead of a
simple boolean.
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
> Subject: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 11:50 AM
> I'm trying to find a good technique for updating
> specific facts in working
> memory. What I'm currently doing is something like
> this:
>
> Rule "Update Amount"
> when
> amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
> charge : Charge()
> then
> Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
> Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
> amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
> update(amountFact);
> end
>
> The update statement causes an infinite loop.
> I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1 charge,
> but not if there
> are more than one.
>
> Any help with solutions or strategies would be much
> appreciated.
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
10:30 p.m.
If you have the control fact that handles the "applied == false" condition you
wouldn't need to prevent reactivation of the rule. It would be handled by the
condition.
I'm thinking Edson's accumulate suggestion would be best, at this point.
If I understand correctly, what you want is this:
1) One rule Fact/Charge activation per Charge instance, with no reactivation when the Fact
is updated.
2) Other Fact dependent rule activations when the Fact is updated.
The problem with making (1) happen is that you'd still have the matched Fact being
updated once per Charge, which could lead to reactivation of the rules in (2) multiple
times, which you may not want. If you use accumulate in the Fact/Charge rule, plus
no-loop to prevent reactivation, you get the best of both worlds: single activation of the
Fact/Charge rule, with a single update to notify other rules that the Fact has changed.
I think what you're after is some kind of "modify group," where multiple
calls to modify are counted as just one, and rules are notified when the group is closed
out. I'm not sure how that would be implemented, because how do you know when the
modifications are finished? A low priority rule, possibly? Anyway, it doesn't exist
in drools, afaik.
You could do that kind of thing with an additional rule that tests for the nonexistence of
an unprocessed Charge, then does the update. Adding in the control fact for tracking
Charges:
rule "Update Amount"
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
$charge : Charge()
chargeTracker : ChargeTracker(charge == $charge, applied == false)
then
Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
chargeTracker.setApplied(true);
update(charge);
end
rule "Close Facts After Charges Applied"
no-loop false
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
not ChargeTracker(applied == false)
then
update(amountFact);
end
You'd probablt also have to prevent the "Close Facts" rule from firing when
there's just no ChargeTrackers in working memory, too.
Give that a try.
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 1:55 PM
Greg,
1) Yes, in this case I'm looking for the cartesian
join.
2) No, I can't add a property to Charge as it's
part of our corp Object
Model.
However, I could create a third object that manages whether
the Charge has
been processed which works just fine. Unless there is a
simpler strategy /
technique, I'll go with that.
Do you know of any way to keep the rule from being put back
on the agenda
when amountFact is updated? I want other rules to know that
it's been
updated, just not the rule that made the change.
Dan
Greg Barton wrote:
>
> 1) Do you want to apply all Charges in working memory
to all "Amount"
> Facts? I ask because the rule is a cartesian join
(i.e. no relation
> between matched objects) and that sometimes performs
in ways users don't
> expect. (i.e. all combinations of objects that match
the conditions are
> affected by the rule)
> 2) Can you add a property to the Charge object? Then
you could use a
> boolean named "applied" to prevent future
matches.
>
> Rule "Update Amount"
> when
> amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
> charge : Charge(applied == false)
> then
> Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
> Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
> amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
> update(amountFact);
> charge.setApplied(true);
> update(charge);
> end
>
> If a charge could be applied to multiple Facts you
could maintain an
> "appliedTo" list of Facts in the Charge, and
check that instead of a
> simple boolean.
>
> --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver
<dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
>> Subject: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and
infinite loops
>> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 11:50 AM
>> I'm trying to find a good technique for
updating
>> specific facts in working
>> memory. What I'm currently doing is something
like
>> this:
>>
>> Rule "Update Amount"
>> when
>> amountFact : Fact(name ==
"Amount")
>> charge : Charge()
>> then
>> Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
>> Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
>> amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
>> update(amountFact);
>> end
>>
>> The update statement causes an infinite loop.
>> I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1
charge,
>> but not if there
>> are more than one.
>>
>> Any help with solutions or strategies would be
much
>> appreciated.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
>> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
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
10:51 p.m.
Oops! Should have "update(chargeTracker)" instead of "update(charge)"
in the "Update Amount" rule below.
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 3:30 PM
If you have the control fact that handles the "applied
== false" condition you wouldn't need to prevent
reactivation of the rule. It would be handled by the
condition.
I'm thinking Edson's accumulate suggestion would be
best, at this point.
If I understand correctly, what you want is this:
1) One rule Fact/Charge activation per Charge instance,
with no reactivation when the Fact is updated.
2) Other Fact dependent rule activations when the Fact is
updated.
The problem with making (1) happen is that you'd still
have the matched Fact being updated once per Charge, which
could lead to reactivation of the rules in (2) multiple
times, which you may not want. If you use accumulate in the
Fact/Charge rule, plus no-loop to prevent reactivation, you
get the best of both worlds: single activation of the
Fact/Charge rule, with a single update to notify other rules
that the Fact has changed.
I think what you're after is some kind of "modify
group," where multiple calls to modify are counted as
just one, and rules are notified when the group is closed
out. I'm not sure how that would be implemented,
because how do you know when the modifications are finished?
A low priority rule, possibly? Anyway, it doesn't
exist in drools, afaik.
You could do that kind of thing with an additional rule
that tests for the nonexistence of an unprocessed Charge,
then does the update. Adding in the control fact for
tracking Charges:
rule "Update Amount"
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
$charge : Charge()
chargeTracker : ChargeTracker(charge == $charge,
applied == false)
then
Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
chargeTracker.setApplied(true);
update(charge);
end
rule "Close Facts After Charges Applied"
no-loop false
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
not ChargeTracker(applied == false)
then
update(amountFact);
end
You'd probablt also have to prevent the "Close
Facts" rule from firing when there's just no
ChargeTrackers in working memory, too.
Give that a try.
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
wrote:
> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and
infinite loops
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 1:55 PM
> Greg,
> 1) Yes, in this case I'm looking for the cartesian
> join.
> 2) No, I can't add a property to Charge as
it's
> part of our corp Object
> Model.
>
> However, I could create a third object that manages
whether
> the Charge has
> been processed which works just fine. Unless there is
a
> simpler strategy /
> technique, I'll go with that.
>
> Do you know of any way to keep the rule from being put
back
> on the agenda
> when amountFact is updated? I want other rules to know
that
> it's been
> updated, just not the rule that made the change.
>
> Dan
>
>
> Greg Barton wrote:
> >
> > 1) Do you want to apply all Charges in working
memory
> to all "Amount"
> > Facts? I ask because the rule is a cartesian
join
> (i.e. no relation
> > between matched objects) and that sometimes
performs
> in ways users don't
> > expect. (i.e. all combinations of objects that
match
> the conditions are
> > affected by the rule)
> > 2) Can you add a property to the Charge object?
Then
> you could use a
> > boolean named "applied" to prevent
future
> matches.
> >
> > Rule "Update Amount"
> > when
> > amountFact : Fact(name ==
"Amount")
> > charge : Charge(applied == false)
> > then
> > Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
> > Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
> > amountFact.setAmount(amount +
chargeAmount);
> > update(amountFact);
> > charge.setApplied(true);
> > update(charge);
> > end
> >
> > If a charge could be applied to multiple Facts
you
> could maintain an
> > "appliedTo" list of Facts in the
Charge, and
> check that instead of a
> > simple boolean.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver
> <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
> >> Subject: [rules-users] Chart notation,
update, and
> infinite loops
> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 11:50 AM
> >> I'm trying to find a good technique for
> updating
> >> specific facts in working
> >> memory. What I'm currently doing is
something
> like
> >> this:
> >>
> >> Rule "Update Amount"
> >> when
> >> amountFact : Fact(name ==
> "Amount")
> >> charge : Charge()
> >> then
> >> Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
> >> Double chargeAmount =
charge.getAmount();
> >> amountFact.setAmount(amount +
chargeAmount);
> >> update(amountFact);
> >> end
> >>
> >> The update statement causes an infinite loop.
> >> I tried using no-loop, which works if there
is 1
> charge,
> >> but not if there
> >> are more than one.
> >>
> >> Any help with solutions or strategies would
be
> much
> >> appreciated.
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
>
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> >> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> 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
1:56 a.m.
Your understanding is very close to what I'm looking for. I don't mind having
multiple rule activations in other areas of the ruleset when the Fact is
updated, I just don't want the current rule, the one with the update
statement, to be reactivated.
Accumulate plus no-loop works fine for the specific case of updating
amounts, but I'd like to have something generic for more sophisticated logic
that would be implemented in the "then" clause.
Maybe if there was something that looked specifically at each property of
the update? In this case, the "when" clause is looking at the "name"
property and the "then" clause is updating the "amount" property. As
the
"name" is not being changed, then the update wouldn't reactivate the rule.
Greg Barton wrote:
If you have the control fact that handles the "applied == false" condition
you wouldn't need to prevent reactivation of the rule. It would be
handled by the condition.
I'm thinking Edson's accumulate suggestion would be best, at this point.
If I understand correctly, what you want is this:
1) One rule Fact/Charge activation per Charge instance, with no
reactivation when the Fact is updated.
2) Other Fact dependent rule activations when the Fact is updated.
The problem with making (1) happen is that you'd still have the matched
Fact being updated once per Charge, which could lead to reactivation of
the rules in (2) multiple times, which you may not want. If you use
accumulate in the Fact/Charge rule, plus no-loop to prevent reactivation,
you get the best of both worlds: single activation of the Fact/Charge
rule, with a single update to notify other rules that the Fact has
changed.
I think what you're after is some kind of "modify group," where multiple
calls to modify are counted as just one, and rules are notified when the
group is closed out. I'm not sure how that would be implemented, because
how do you know when the modifications are finished? A low priority rule,
possibly? Anyway, it doesn't exist in drools, afaik.
You could do that kind of thing with an additional rule that tests for the
nonexistence of an unprocessed Charge, then does the update. Adding in
the control fact for tracking Charges:
rule "Update Amount"
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
$charge : Charge()
chargeTracker : ChargeTracker(charge == $charge, applied == false)
then
Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
chargeTracker.setApplied(true);
update(charge);
end
rule "Close Facts After Charges Applied"
no-loop false
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
not ChargeTracker(applied == false)
then
update(amountFact);
end
You'd probablt also have to prevent the "Close Facts" rule from firing
when there's just no ChargeTrackers in working memory, too.
Give that a try.
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 1:55 PM
> Greg,
> 1) Yes, in this case I'm looking for the cartesian
> join.
> 2) No, I can't add a property to Charge as it's
> part of our corp Object
> Model.
>
> However, I could create a third object that manages whether
> the Charge has
> been processed which works just fine. Unless there is a
> simpler strategy /
> technique, I'll go with that.
>
> Do you know of any way to keep the rule from being put back
> on the agenda
> when amountFact is updated? I want other rules to know that
> it's been
> updated, just not the rule that made the change.
>
> Dan
>
>
> Greg Barton wrote:
> >
> > 1) Do you want to apply all Charges in working memory
> to all "Amount"
> > Facts? I ask because the rule is a cartesian join
> (i.e. no relation
> > between matched objects) and that sometimes performs
> in ways users don't
> > expect. (i.e. all combinations of objects that match
> the conditions are
> > affected by the rule)
> > 2) Can you add a property to the Charge object? Then
> you could use a
> > boolean named "applied" to prevent future
> matches.
> >
> > Rule "Update Amount"
> > when
> > amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
> > charge : Charge(applied == false)
> > then
> > Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
> > Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
> > amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
> > update(amountFact);
> > charge.setApplied(true);
> > update(charge);
> > end
> >
> > If a charge could be applied to multiple Facts you
> could maintain an
> > "appliedTo" list of Facts in the Charge, and
> check that instead of a
> > simple boolean.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver
> <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
> >> Subject: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and
> infinite loops
> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 11:50 AM
> >> I'm trying to find a good technique for
> updating
> >> specific facts in working
> >> memory. What I'm currently doing is something
> like
> >> this:
> >>
> >> Rule "Update Amount"
> >> when
> >> amountFact : Fact(name ==
> "Amount")
> >> charge : Charge()
> >> then
> >> Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
> >> Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
> >> amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
> >> update(amountFact);
> >> end
> >>
> >> The update statement causes an infinite loop.
> >> I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1
> charge,
> >> but not if there
> >> are more than one.
> >>
> >> Any help with solutions or strategies would be
> much
> >> appreciated.
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
>
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> >> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
2:06 a.m.
Dan,
This is a feature that is in our to-do list. Jess calls it "slot specific
updates". We did not had the time yet to implement it though. :(
[]s
Edson
2008/11/4 Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
Your understanding is very close to what I'm looking for. I don't mind
having
multiple rule activations in other areas of the ruleset when the Fact is
updated, I just don't want the current rule, the one with the update
statement, to be reactivated.
Accumulate plus no-loop works fine for the specific case of updating
amounts, but I'd like to have something generic for more sophisticated
logic
that would be implemented in the "then" clause.
Maybe if there was something that looked specifically at each property of
the update? In this case, the "when" clause is looking at the "name"
property and the "then" clause is updating the "amount" property. As
the
"name" is not being changed, then the update wouldn't reactivate the rule.
Greg Barton wrote:
>
> If you have the control fact that handles the "applied == false"
condition
> you wouldn't need to prevent reactivation of the rule. It would be
> handled by the condition.
>
> I'm thinking Edson's accumulate suggestion would be best, at this point.
>
> If I understand correctly, what you want is this:
>
> 1) One rule Fact/Charge activation per Charge instance, with no
> reactivation when the Fact is updated.
> 2) Other Fact dependent rule activations when the Fact is updated.
>
> The problem with making (1) happen is that you'd still have the matched
> Fact being updated once per Charge, which could lead to reactivation of
> the rules in (2) multiple times, which you may not want. If you use
> accumulate in the Fact/Charge rule, plus no-loop to prevent reactivation,
> you get the best of both worlds: single activation of the Fact/Charge
> rule, with a single update to notify other rules that the Fact has
> changed.
>
> I think what you're after is some kind of "modify group," where
multiple
> calls to modify are counted as just one, and rules are notified when the
> group is closed out. I'm not sure how that would be implemented, because
> how do you know when the modifications are finished? A low priority
rule,
> possibly? Anyway, it doesn't exist in drools, afaik.
>
> You could do that kind of thing with an additional rule that tests for
the
> nonexistence of an unprocessed Charge, then does the update. Adding in
> the control fact for tracking Charges:
>
> rule "Update Amount"
> when
> amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
> $charge : Charge()
> chargeTracker : ChargeTracker(charge == $charge, applied == false)
> then
> Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
> Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
> amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
> chargeTracker.setApplied(true);
> update(charge);
> end
>
> rule "Close Facts After Charges Applied"
> no-loop false
> when
> amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
> not ChargeTracker(applied == false)
> then
> update(amountFact);
> end
>
> You'd probablt also have to prevent the "Close Facts" rule from
firing
> when there's just no ChargeTrackers in working memory, too.
>
> Give that a try.
>
> --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
>> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
>> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 1:55 PM
>> Greg,
>> 1) Yes, in this case I'm looking for the cartesian
>> join.
>> 2) No, I can't add a property to Charge as it's
>> part of our corp Object
>> Model.
>>
>> However, I could create a third object that manages whether
>> the Charge has
>> been processed which works just fine. Unless there is a
>> simpler strategy /
>> technique, I'll go with that.
>>
>> Do you know of any way to keep the rule from being put back
>> on the agenda
>> when amountFact is updated? I want other rules to know that
>> it's been
>> updated, just not the rule that made the change.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> Greg Barton wrote:
>> >
>> > 1) Do you want to apply all Charges in working memory
>> to all "Amount"
>> > Facts? I ask because the rule is a cartesian join
>> (i.e. no relation
>> > between matched objects) and that sometimes performs
>> in ways users don't
>> > expect. (i.e. all combinations of objects that match
>> the conditions are
>> > affected by the rule)
>> > 2) Can you add a property to the Charge object? Then
>> you could use a
>> > boolean named "applied" to prevent future
>> matches.
>> >
>> > Rule "Update Amount"
>> > when
>> > amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
>> > charge : Charge(applied == false)
>> > then
>> > Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
>> > Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
>> > amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
>> > update(amountFact);
>> > charge.setApplied(true);
>> > update(charge);
>> > end
>> >
>> > If a charge could be applied to multiple Facts you
>> could maintain an
>> > "appliedTo" list of Facts in the Charge, and
>> check that instead of a
>> > simple boolean.
>> >
>> > --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver
>> <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
>> >> Subject: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and
>> infinite loops
>> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> >> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 11:50 AM
>> >> I'm trying to find a good technique for
>> updating
>> >> specific facts in working
>> >> memory. What I'm currently doing is something
>> like
>> >> this:
>> >>
>> >> Rule "Update Amount"
>> >> when
>> >> amountFact : Fact(name ==
>> "Amount")
>> >> charge : Charge()
>> >> then
>> >> Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
>> >> Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
>> >> amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
>> >> update(amountFact);
>> >> end
>> >>
>> >> The update statement causes an infinite loop.
>> >> I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1
>> charge,
>> >> but not if there
>> >> are more than one.
>> >>
>> >> Any help with solutions or strategies would be
>> much
>> >> appreciated.
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>>
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
>> >> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
>> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
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
2:42 a.m.
I thought drools had this. If you point me in the right direction (and you have the time)
I'd be happy to work on that.
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
From: Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 7:06 PM
Dan,
This is a feature that is in our to-do list. Jess calls
it "slot specific
updates". We did not had the time yet to implement it
though. :(
[]s
Edson
2008/11/4 Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
>
> Your understanding is very close to what I'm
looking for. I don't mind
> having
> multiple rule activations in other areas of the
ruleset when the Fact is
> updated, I just don't want the current rule, the
one with the update
> statement, to be reactivated.
>
> Accumulate plus no-loop works fine for the specific
case of updating
> amounts, but I'd like to have something generic
for more sophisticated
> logic
> that would be implemented in the "then"
clause.
>
> Maybe if there was something that looked specifically
at each property of
> the update? In this case, the "when" clause
is looking at the "name"
> property and the "then" clause is updating
the "amount" property. As the
> "name" is not being changed, then the update
wouldn't reactivate the rule.
>
>
>
> Greg Barton wrote:
> >
> > If you have the control fact that handles the
"applied == false"
> condition
> > you wouldn't need to prevent reactivation of
the rule. It would be
> > handled by the condition.
> >
> > I'm thinking Edson's accumulate
suggestion would be best, at this point.
> >
> > If I understand correctly, what you want is this:
> >
> > 1) One rule Fact/Charge activation per Charge
instance, with no
> > reactivation when the Fact is updated.
> > 2) Other Fact dependent rule activations when the
Fact is updated.
> >
> > The problem with making (1) happen is that
you'd still have the matched
> > Fact being updated once per Charge, which could
lead to reactivation of
> > the rules in (2) multiple times, which you may
not want. If you use
> > accumulate in the Fact/Charge rule, plus no-loop
to prevent reactivation,
> > you get the best of both worlds: single
activation of the Fact/Charge
> > rule, with a single update to notify other rules
that the Fact has
> > changed.
> >
> > I think what you're after is some kind of
"modify group," where multiple
> > calls to modify are counted as just one, and
rules are notified when the
> > group is closed out. I'm not sure how that
would be implemented, because
> > how do you know when the modifications are
finished? A low priority
> rule,
> > possibly? Anyway, it doesn't exist in
drools, afaik.
> >
> > You could do that kind of thing with an
additional rule that tests for
> the
> > nonexistence of an unprocessed Charge, then does
the update. Adding in
> > the control fact for tracking Charges:
> >
> > rule "Update Amount"
> > when
> > amountFact : Fact(name ==
"Amount")
> > $charge : Charge()
> > chargeTracker : ChargeTracker(charge ==
$charge, applied == false)
> > then
> > Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
> > Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
> > amountFact.setAmount(amount +
chargeAmount);
> > chargeTracker.setApplied(true);
> > update(charge);
> > end
> >
> > rule "Close Facts After Charges
Applied"
> > no-loop false
> > when
> > amountFact : Fact(name ==
"Amount")
> > not ChargeTracker(applied == false)
> > then
> > update(amountFact);
> > end
> >
> > You'd probablt also have to prevent the
"Close Facts" rule from firing
> > when there's just no ChargeTrackers in
working memory, too.
> >
> > Give that a try.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver
<dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation,
update, and infinite loops
> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 1:55 PM
> >> Greg,
> >> 1) Yes, in this case I'm looking for the
cartesian
> >> join.
> >> 2) No, I can't add a property to Charge
as it's
> >> part of our corp Object
> >> Model.
> >>
> >> However, I could create a third object that
manages whether
> >> the Charge has
> >> been processed which works just fine. Unless
there is a
> >> simpler strategy /
> >> technique, I'll go with that.
> >>
> >> Do you know of any way to keep the rule from
being put back
> >> on the agenda
> >> when amountFact is updated? I want other
rules to know that
> >> it's been
> >> updated, just not the rule that made the
change.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >> Greg Barton wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Do you want to apply all Charges in
working memory
> >> to all "Amount"
> >> > Facts? I ask because the rule is a
cartesian join
> >> (i.e. no relation
> >> > between matched objects) and that
sometimes performs
> >> in ways users don't
> >> > expect. (i.e. all combinations of
objects that match
> >> the conditions are
> >> > affected by the rule)
> >> > 2) Can you add a property to the Charge
object? Then
> >> you could use a
> >> > boolean named "applied" to
prevent future
> >> matches.
> >> >
> >> > Rule "Update Amount"
> >> > when
> >> > amountFact : Fact(name ==
"Amount")
> >> > charge : Charge(applied == false)
> >> > then
> >> > Double amount =
amountFact.getAmount();
> >> > Double chargeAmount =
charge.getAmount();
> >> > amountFact.setAmount(amount +
chargeAmount);
> >> > update(amountFact);
> >> > charge.setApplied(true);
> >> > update(charge);
> >> > end
> >> >
> >> > If a charge could be applied to multiple
Facts you
> >> could maintain an
> >> > "appliedTo" list of Facts in
the Charge, and
> >> check that instead of a
> >> > simple boolean.
> >> >
> >> > --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver
> >> <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> From: Dan Seaver
<dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
> >> >> Subject: [rules-users] Chart
notation, update, and
> >> infinite loops
> >> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> >> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008,
11:50 AM
> >> >> I'm trying to find a good
technique for
> >> updating
> >> >> specific facts in working
> >> >> memory. What I'm currently doing
is something
> >> like
> >> >> this:
> >> >>
> >> >> Rule "Update Amount"
> >> >> when
> >> >> amountFact : Fact(name ==
> >> "Amount")
> >> >> charge : Charge()
> >> >> then
> >> >> Double amount =
amountFact.getAmount();
> >> >> Double chargeAmount =
charge.getAmount();
> >> >> amountFact.setAmount(amount +
chargeAmount);
> >> >> update(amountFact);
> >> >> end
> >> >>
> >> >> The update statement causes an
infinite loop.
> >> >> I tried using no-loop, which works
if there is 1
> >> charge,
> >> >> but not if there
> >> >> are more than one.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any help with solutions or
strategies would be
> >> much
> >> >> appreciated.
> >> >> --
> >> >> View this message in context:
> >> >>
> >>
>
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> >> >> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> >> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> 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
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
2:54 a.m.
That is an excellent project, but it is deep in the core engine. Great
opportunity to learn all about ReteOO and drools internals, but will require
some research from your side... we know the general solution, but you may
still find some obstacles that need to be removed as you go.
If you are willing to take the challenge, lets move the discussion to
drools-dev and we can guide you.
[]s
Edson
2008/11/4 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
I thought drools had this. If you point me in the right direction
(and you
have the time) I'd be happy to work on that.
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
> From: Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 7:06 PM
> Dan,
>
> This is a feature that is in our to-do list. Jess calls
> it "slot specific
> updates". We did not had the time yet to implement it
> though. :(
>
> []s
> Edson
>
> 2008/11/4 Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
>
> >
> > Your understanding is very close to what I'm
> looking for. I don't mind
> > having
> > multiple rule activations in other areas of the
> ruleset when the Fact is
> > updated, I just don't want the current rule, the
> one with the update
> > statement, to be reactivated.
> >
> > Accumulate plus no-loop works fine for the specific
> case of updating
> > amounts, but I'd like to have something generic
> for more sophisticated
> > logic
> > that would be implemented in the "then"
> clause.
> >
> > Maybe if there was something that looked specifically
> at each property of
> > the update? In this case, the "when" clause
> is looking at the "name"
> > property and the "then" clause is updating
> the "amount" property. As the
> > "name" is not being changed, then the update
> wouldn't reactivate the rule.
> >
> >
> >
> > Greg Barton wrote:
> > >
> > > If you have the control fact that handles the
> "applied == false"
> > condition
> > > you wouldn't need to prevent reactivation of
> the rule. It would be
> > > handled by the condition.
> > >
> > > I'm thinking Edson's accumulate
> suggestion would be best, at this point.
> > >
> > > If I understand correctly, what you want is this:
> > >
> > > 1) One rule Fact/Charge activation per Charge
> instance, with no
> > > reactivation when the Fact is updated.
> > > 2) Other Fact dependent rule activations when the
> Fact is updated.
> > >
> > > The problem with making (1) happen is that
> you'd still have the matched
> > > Fact being updated once per Charge, which could
> lead to reactivation of
> > > the rules in (2) multiple times, which you may
> not want. If you use
> > > accumulate in the Fact/Charge rule, plus no-loop
> to prevent reactivation,
> > > you get the best of both worlds: single
> activation of the Fact/Charge
> > > rule, with a single update to notify other rules
> that the Fact has
> > > changed.
> > >
> > > I think what you're after is some kind of
> "modify group," where multiple
> > > calls to modify are counted as just one, and
> rules are notified when the
> > > group is closed out. I'm not sure how that
> would be implemented, because
> > > how do you know when the modifications are
> finished? A low priority
> > rule,
> > > possibly? Anyway, it doesn't exist in
> drools, afaik.
> > >
> > > You could do that kind of thing with an
> additional rule that tests for
> > the
> > > nonexistence of an unprocessed Charge, then does
> the update. Adding in
> > > the control fact for tracking Charges:
> > >
> > > rule "Update Amount"
> > > when
> > > amountFact : Fact(name ==
> "Amount")
> > > $charge : Charge()
> > > chargeTracker : ChargeTracker(charge ==
> $charge, applied == false)
> > > then
> > > Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
> > > Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
> > > amountFact.setAmount(amount +
> chargeAmount);
> > > chargeTracker.setApplied(true);
> > > update(charge);
> > > end
> > >
> > > rule "Close Facts After Charges
> Applied"
> > > no-loop false
> > > when
> > > amountFact : Fact(name ==
> "Amount")
> > > not ChargeTracker(applied == false)
> > > then
> > > update(amountFact);
> > > end
> > >
> > > You'd probablt also have to prevent the
> "Close Facts" rule from firing
> > > when there's just no ChargeTrackers in
> working memory, too.
> > >
> > > Give that a try.
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver
> <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation,
> update, and infinite loops
> > >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > >> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 1:55 PM
> > >> Greg,
> > >> 1) Yes, in this case I'm looking for the
> cartesian
> > >> join.
> > >> 2) No, I can't add a property to Charge
> as it's
> > >> part of our corp Object
> > >> Model.
> > >>
> > >> However, I could create a third object that
> manages whether
> > >> the Charge has
> > >> been processed which works just fine. Unless
> there is a
> > >> simpler strategy /
> > >> technique, I'll go with that.
> > >>
> > >> Do you know of any way to keep the rule from
> being put back
> > >> on the agenda
> > >> when amountFact is updated? I want other
> rules to know that
> > >> it's been
> > >> updated, just not the rule that made the
> change.
> > >>
> > >> Dan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Greg Barton wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) Do you want to apply all Charges in
> working memory
> > >> to all "Amount"
> > >> > Facts? I ask because the rule is a
> cartesian join
> > >> (i.e. no relation
> > >> > between matched objects) and that
> sometimes performs
> > >> in ways users don't
> > >> > expect. (i.e. all combinations of
> objects that match
> > >> the conditions are
> > >> > affected by the rule)
> > >> > 2) Can you add a property to the Charge
> object? Then
> > >> you could use a
> > >> > boolean named "applied" to
> prevent future
> > >> matches.
> > >> >
> > >> > Rule "Update Amount"
> > >> > when
> > >> > amountFact : Fact(name ==
> "Amount")
> > >> > charge : Charge(applied == false)
> > >> > then
> > >> > Double amount =
> amountFact.getAmount();
> > >> > Double chargeAmount =
> charge.getAmount();
> > >> > amountFact.setAmount(amount +
> chargeAmount);
> > >> > update(amountFact);
> > >> > charge.setApplied(true);
> > >> > update(charge);
> > >> > end
> > >> >
> > >> > If a charge could be applied to multiple
> Facts you
> > >> could maintain an
> > >> > "appliedTo" list of Facts in
> the Charge, and
> > >> check that instead of a
> > >> > simple boolean.
> > >> >
> > >> > --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver
> > >> <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> From: Dan Seaver
> <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
> > >> >> Subject: [rules-users] Chart
> notation, update, and
> > >> infinite loops
> > >> >> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> > >> >> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008,
> 11:50 AM
> > >> >> I'm trying to find a good
> technique for
> > >> updating
> > >> >> specific facts in working
> > >> >> memory. What I'm currently doing
> is something
> > >> like
> > >> >> this:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Rule "Update Amount"
> > >> >> when
> > >> >> amountFact : Fact(name ==
> > >> "Amount")
> > >> >> charge : Charge()
> > >> >> then
> > >> >> Double amount =
> amountFact.getAmount();
> > >> >> Double chargeAmount =
> charge.getAmount();
> > >> >> amountFact.setAmount(amount +
> chargeAmount);
> > >> >> update(amountFact);
> > >> >> end
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The update statement causes an
> infinite loop.
> > >> >> I tried using no-loop, which works
> if there is 1
> > >> charge,
> > >> >> but not if there
> > >> >> are more than one.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Any help with solutions or
> strategies would be
> > >> much
> > >> >> appreciated.
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> View this message in context:
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
>
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> > >> >> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> > >> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
3:13 a.m.
Greg Barton wrote:
I thought drools had this. If you point me in the right direction
(and you have the time) I'd be happy to work on that.
It's non-trivial, especially when evals are involved, but you are
welcome to have a go. Not even sure where to begin on this....
I imagine the first thing is that the PropagationContext will need a
binary mask, supplied by the modify keyword, which shows the fields
modified as part of the modify action. We will then need to do bitmap
masking to determine whether a propagation should continue down a route
or not. This may be an easier one to do on irc, if you can get there.
Just be aware that this is many days, if not weeks work, to get it right
with adequate unit testing.
Mark
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
> From: Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 7:06 PM
> Dan,
>
> This is a feature that is in our to-do list. Jess calls
> it "slot specific
> updates". We did not had the time yet to implement it
> though. :(
>
> []s
> Edson
>
> 2008/11/4 Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
>
>
>> Your understanding is very close to what I'm
>>
> looking for. I don't mind
>
>> having
>> multiple rule activations in other areas of the
>>
> ruleset when the Fact is
>
>> updated, I just don't want the current rule, the
>>
> one with the update
>
>> statement, to be reactivated.
>>
>> Accumulate plus no-loop works fine for the specific
>>
> case of updating
>
>> amounts, but I'd like to have something generic
>>
> for more sophisticated
>
>> logic
>> that would be implemented in the "then"
>>
> clause.
>
>> Maybe if there was something that looked specifically
>>
> at each property of
>
>> the update? In this case, the "when" clause
>>
> is looking at the "name"
>
>> property and the "then" clause is updating
>>
> the "amount" property. As the
>
>> "name" is not being changed, then the update
>>
> wouldn't reactivate the rule.
>
>>
>> Greg Barton wrote:
>>
>>> If you have the control fact that handles the
>>>
> "applied == false"
>
>> condition
>>
>>> you wouldn't need to prevent reactivation of
>>>
> the rule. It would be
>
>>> handled by the condition.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking Edson's accumulate
>>>
> suggestion would be best, at this point.
>
>>> If I understand correctly, what you want is this:
>>>
>>> 1) One rule Fact/Charge activation per Charge
>>>
> instance, with no
>
>>> reactivation when the Fact is updated.
>>> 2) Other Fact dependent rule activations when the
>>>
> Fact is updated.
>
>>> The problem with making (1) happen is that
>>>
> you'd still have the matched
>
>>> Fact being updated once per Charge, which could
>>>
> lead to reactivation of
>
>>> the rules in (2) multiple times, which you may
>>>
> not want. If you use
>
>>> accumulate in the Fact/Charge rule, plus no-loop
>>>
> to prevent reactivation,
>
>>> you get the best of both worlds: single
>>>
> activation of the Fact/Charge
>
>>> rule, with a single update to notify other rules
>>>
> that the Fact has
>
>>> changed.
>>>
>>> I think what you're after is some kind of
>>>
> "modify group," where multiple
>
>>> calls to modify are counted as just one, and
>>>
> rules are notified when the
>
>>> group is closed out. I'm not sure how that
>>>
> would be implemented, because
>
>>> how do you know when the modifications are
>>>
> finished? A low priority
>
>> rule,
>>
>>> possibly? Anyway, it doesn't exist in
>>>
> drools, afaik.
>
>>> You could do that kind of thing with an
>>>
> additional rule that tests for
>
>> the
>>
>>> nonexistence of an unprocessed Charge, then does
>>>
> the update. Adding in
>
>>> the control fact for tracking Charges:
>>>
>>> rule "Update Amount"
>>> when
>>> amountFact : Fact(name ==
>>>
> "Amount")
>
>>> $charge : Charge()
>>> chargeTracker : ChargeTracker(charge ==
>>>
> $charge, applied == false)
>
>>> then
>>> Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
>>> Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
>>> amountFact.setAmount(amount +
>>>
> chargeAmount);
>
>>> chargeTracker.setApplied(true);
>>> update(charge);
>>> end
>>>
>>> rule "Close Facts After Charges
>>>
> Applied"
>
>>> no-loop false
>>> when
>>> amountFact : Fact(name ==
>>>
> "Amount")
>
>>> not ChargeTracker(applied == false)
>>> then
>>> update(amountFact);
>>> end
>>>
>>> You'd probablt also have to prevent the
>>>
> "Close Facts" rule from firing
>
>>> when there's just no ChargeTrackers in
>>>
> working memory, too.
>
>>> Give that a try.
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver
>>>
> <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
>
>>>> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation,
>>>>
> update, and infinite loops
>
>>>> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 1:55 PM
>>>> Greg,
>>>> 1) Yes, in this case I'm looking for the
>>>>
> cartesian
>
>>>> join.
>>>> 2) No, I can't add a property to Charge
>>>>
> as it's
>
>>>> part of our corp Object
>>>> Model.
>>>>
>>>> However, I could create a third object that
>>>>
> manages whether
>
>>>> the Charge has
>>>> been processed which works just fine. Unless
>>>>
> there is a
>
>>>> simpler strategy /
>>>> technique, I'll go with that.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know of any way to keep the rule from
>>>>
> being put back
>
>>>> on the agenda
>>>> when amountFact is updated? I want other
>>>>
> rules to know that
>
>>>> it's been
>>>> updated, just not the rule that made the
>>>>
> change.
>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg Barton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1) Do you want to apply all Charges in
>>>>>
> working memory
>
>>>> to all "Amount"
>>>>
>>>>> Facts? I ask because the rule is a
>>>>>
> cartesian join
>
>>>> (i.e. no relation
>>>>
>>>>> between matched objects) and that
>>>>>
> sometimes performs
>
>>>> in ways users don't
>>>>
>>>>> expect. (i.e. all combinations of
>>>>>
> objects that match
>
>>>> the conditions are
>>>>
>>>>> affected by the rule)
>>>>> 2) Can you add a property to the Charge
>>>>>
> object? Then
>
>>>> you could use a
>>>>
>>>>> boolean named "applied" to
>>>>>
> prevent future
>
>>>> matches.
>>>>
>>>>> Rule "Update Amount"
>>>>> when
>>>>> amountFact : Fact(name ==
>>>>>
> "Amount")
>
>>>>> charge : Charge(applied == false)
>>>>> then
>>>>> Double amount =
>>>>>
> amountFact.getAmount();
>
>>>>> Double chargeAmount =
>>>>>
> charge.getAmount();
>
>>>>> amountFact.setAmount(amount +
>>>>>
> chargeAmount);
>
>>>>> update(amountFact);
>>>>> charge.setApplied(true);
>>>>> update(charge);
>>>>> end
>>>>>
>>>>> If a charge could be applied to multiple
>>>>>
> Facts you
>
>>>> could maintain an
>>>>
>>>>> "appliedTo" list of Facts in
>>>>>
> the Charge, and
>
>>>> check that instead of a
>>>>
>>>>> simple boolean.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver
>>>>>
>>>> <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> From: Dan Seaver
>>>>>>
> <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
>
>>>>>> Subject: [rules-users] Chart
>>>>>>
> notation, update, and
>
>>>> infinite loops
>>>>
>>>>>> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008,
>>>>>>
> 11:50 AM
>
>>>>>> I'm trying to find a good
>>>>>>
> technique for
>
>>>> updating
>>>>
>>>>>> specific facts in working
>>>>>> memory. What I'm currently doing
>>>>>>
> is something
>
>>>> like
>>>>
>>>>>> this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rule "Update Amount"
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> amountFact : Fact(name ==
>>>>>>
>>>> "Amount")
>>>>
>>>>>> charge : Charge()
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> Double amount =
>>>>>>
> amountFact.getAmount();
>
>>>>>> Double chargeAmount =
>>>>>>
> charge.getAmount();
>
>>>>>> amountFact.setAmount(amount +
>>>>>>
> chargeAmount);
>
>>>>>> update(amountFact);
>>>>>> end
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The update statement causes an
>>>>>>
> infinite loop.
>
>>>>>> I tried using no-loop, which works
>>>>>>
> if there is 1
>
>>>> charge,
>>>>
>>>>>> but not if there
>>>>>> are more than one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any help with solutions or
>>>>>>
> strategies would be
>
>>>> much
>>>>
>>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
>
>>>>>> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
>
>>>> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
>
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
7:33 p.m.
Dan,
Why would you have more than one Charge when you are not qualifying it? Are they all the
same? Do you not care which one matches?
Earnie!
________________________________
From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2008 12:50:09 PM
Subject: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
I'm trying to find a good technique for updating specific facts in working
memory. What I'm currently doing is something like this:
Rule "Update Amount"
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
charge : Charge()
then
Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
update(amountFact);
end
The update statement causes an infinite loop.
I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1 charge, but not if there
are more than one.
Any help with solutions or strategies would be much appreciated.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
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
8:41 p.m.
Earnie,
I could certainly qualify which charges I want to use to increment the total
in amountFact. The example is illustratrating the problem with using the
technique of assigning a variable name, via chart notation, to an object in
Working Memory so that you can update the object in the consequences section
(then clause) of the rule.
Because amountFact is updated, it puts the rule back on the agenda to be
processed again, even though the properties that are being used by the rule
qualification (when clause) have not changed.
So, if I remove the update statement, the rule behaves properly and
amountFact contains a total of all of the amounts in the charges that have
been inserted into Working Memory.
However, if I have another rule that looks at the amountFact's amount, it
won't see the updates to the property and won't fire. For example:
rule "Test Amount"
when
Fact(name == "Amount", amount > 150)
then
System.out.println("Amount is greater than 150");
end
Earnie D wrote:
Dan,
Why would you have more than one Charge when you are not qualifying it?
Are they all the same? Do you not care which one matches?
Earnie!
________________________________
From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2008 12:50:09 PM
Subject: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
I'm trying to find a good technique for updating specific facts in working
memory. What I'm currently doing is something like this:
Rule "Update Amount"
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
charge : Charge()
then
Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
update(amountFact);
end
The update statement causes an infinite loop.
I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1 charge, but not if there
are more than one.
Any help with solutions or strategies would be much appreciated.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
8:13 p.m.
There are several ways of doing that, and some where even mentioned by
the other users. One easy way is to simply use "accumulate":
rule "update amount"
no-loop
when
$f : Fact( name == "amount" )
Number( $total : doubleValue ) from accumulate(
Charge( $amt : amount ),
sum( $amt ) )
then
modify( $f ) { setAmount( $total ) }
end
[]s
Edson
2008/11/4 Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
I'm trying to find a good technique for updating specific facts in working
memory. What I'm currently doing is something like this:
Rule "Update Amount"
when
amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
charge : Charge()
then
Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
update(amountFact);
end
The update statement causes an infinite loop.
I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1 charge, but not if there
are more than one.
Any help with solutions or strategies would be much appreciated.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
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
9:08 p.m.
Thanks Edson,
I'm aware of "accumulate" and see how it can be used to solve the specific
issue.
I'm looking for a more generic solution for updating objects.
The only reason amountFact is part of the "when" clause is for a reference
to the object that can be used by the "then" clause. It's not really part
of
the rule criteria.
If I could get a reference to it directly in the "then" clause, the update
statement would not put the rule back on the agenda - which would be
perfect.
Any ideas?
Dan
Edson Tirelli-3 wrote:
There are several ways of doing that, and some where even mentioned by
the other users. One easy way is to simply use "accumulate":
rule "update amount"
no-loop
when
$f : Fact( name == "amount" )
Number( $total : doubleValue ) from accumulate(
Charge( $amt : amount ),
sum( $amt ) )
then
modify( $f ) { setAmount( $total ) }
end
[]s
Edson
2008/11/4 Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
>
> I'm trying to find a good technique for updating specific facts in
> working
> memory. What I'm currently doing is something like this:
>
> Rule "Update Amount"
> when
> amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
> charge : Charge()
> then
> Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
> Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
> amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
> update(amountFact);
> end
>
> The update statement causes an infinite loop.
> I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1 charge, but not if there
> are more than one.
>
> Any help with solutions or strategies would be much appreciated.
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> 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
_______________________________________________
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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
9:29 p.m.
Put it in a global variable?
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 2:08 PM
Thanks Edson,
I'm aware of "accumulate" and see how it can
be used to solve the specific
issue.
I'm looking for a more generic solution for updating
objects.
The only reason amountFact is part of the "when"
clause is for a reference
to the object that can be used by the "then"
clause. It's not really part of
the rule criteria.
If I could get a reference to it directly in the
"then" clause, the update
statement would not put the rule back on the agenda - which
would be
perfect.
Any ideas?
Dan
Edson Tirelli-3 wrote:
>
> There are several ways of doing that, and some
where even mentioned by
> the other users. One easy way is to simply use
"accumulate":
>
> rule "update amount"
> no-loop
> when
> $f : Fact( name == "amount" )
> Number( $total : doubleValue ) from accumulate(
> Charge( $amt : amount ),
> sum( $amt ) )
> then
> modify( $f ) { setAmount( $total ) }
> end
>
> []s
> Edson
>
> 2008/11/4 Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
>
>>
>> I'm trying to find a good technique for
updating specific facts in
>> working
>> memory. What I'm currently doing is something
like this:
>>
>> Rule "Update Amount"
>> when
>> amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
>> charge : Charge()
>> then
>> Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
>> Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
>> amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
>> update(amountFact);
>> end
>>
>> The update statement causes an infinite loop.
>> I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1
charge, but not if there
>> are more than one.
>>
>> Any help with solutions or strategies would be
much appreciated.
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
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
1:39 a.m.
Unfortunately, we can't use the results of the update in the "when" clause
of
other rules if we put it in a global.
Greg Barton wrote:
Put it in a global variable?
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com> wrote:
> From: Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Chart notation, update, and infinite loops
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 2:08 PM
> Thanks Edson,
> I'm aware of "accumulate" and see how it can
> be used to solve the specific
> issue.
>
> I'm looking for a more generic solution for updating
> objects.
>
> The only reason amountFact is part of the "when"
> clause is for a reference
> to the object that can be used by the "then"
> clause. It's not really part of
> the rule criteria.
>
> If I could get a reference to it directly in the
> "then" clause, the update
> statement would not put the rule back on the agenda - which
> would be
> perfect.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Dan
>
> Edson Tirelli-3 wrote:
> >
> > There are several ways of doing that, and some
> where even mentioned by
> > the other users. One easy way is to simply use
> "accumulate":
> >
> > rule "update amount"
> > no-loop
> > when
> > $f : Fact( name == "amount" )
> > Number( $total : doubleValue ) from accumulate(
> > Charge( $amt : amount ),
> > sum( $amt ) )
> > then
> > modify( $f ) { setAmount( $total ) }
> > end
> >
> > []s
> > Edson
> >
> > 2008/11/4 Dan Seaver <dan.seaver(a)ge.com>
> >
> >>
> >> I'm trying to find a good technique for
> updating specific facts in
> >> working
> >> memory. What I'm currently doing is something
> like this:
> >>
> >> Rule "Update Amount"
> >> when
> >> amountFact : Fact(name == "Amount")
> >> charge : Charge()
> >> then
> >> Double amount = amountFact.getAmount();
> >> Double chargeAmount = charge.getAmount();
> >> amountFact.setAmount(amount + chargeAmount);
> >> update(amountFact);
> >> end
> >>
> >> The update statement causes an infinite loop.
> >> I tried using no-loop, which works if there is 1
> charge, but not if there
> >> are more than one.
> >>
> >> Any help with solutions or strategies would be
> much appreciated.
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
>
http://www.nabble.com/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> >> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
> 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/Chart-notation%2C-update%2C-and-infinite-loops-tp20...
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
5650
days inactive
5651
days old
15 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Dan Seaver -
Earnest Dyke -
Edson Tirelli -
Greg Barton -
Mark Proctor