Thanks, please provide a specific example rule too. Don't forget to keep your posts to the mailing list for the good of the community. On 12 October 2010 22:18, Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Michale > Thanks for the response. > Here's the link for the thread . > > > http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Check-if-fact-is-subs... > > and the original about matching strings in two arrays. > > http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Matching-strings-in-t... > > > My use case is that I could have hundreds of rule and each rule could have > its own set of strings. > A fact object is run through these rules to see which ones are fired. > One of the condition to check is that the a list in the fact is not a > subset of list in the rule. > That is fire the rule only if list in fact is not a subset of list in > rule. > > Thanks > Kumar > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Michael Anstis < > michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> OK, I admit I don't have the original thread anymore. >> >> If I am not wrong (which is always a possibility) for Wolfgang's operator >> to work you'd need to externalise the superset from the rule into >> WorkingMemory. You could have a rule with higher salience construct the >> superset WM fact. >> >> If you don't mind re-posting or providing a link to the complete thread >> (on Nabble or somewhere) I'll happily try to help further. >> >> On 12 October 2010 17:23, <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> <quote author='Michael Anstis-2'> >>> >>> Wolfgang gave a great solution. >>> </quote> >>> Don't know if I'm missing something obvious here. I have a superset in >>> the rule itself. Each rule has a superset list. In this case how would I use >>> Wolfgang's solution. Its comparing through two arrays in runtime. I have not >>> been able to construct an array construct with specific values in the rule >>> itself. >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Not as clear as I'd hoped; can you provide an actual rule DRL? 2010/10/13 Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; Michael > Here are some examples > > Rule1 has "str1", "Str2", "Str3" > > Rule2 has "str2", "Str3", "Str5", "Str6", "Str7" > > Rule3 has "str1", "Str3", "Str6" > > etc. > > With fact1 that has "str1", "Str3" , since this is subset of values in > Rule1 and Rule3, they should not fire but Rule2 should fire > > With fact2 that has "str2", "Str6", "Str7", Rule 2 should not fire and > Rule1 and Rule3 should fire. > > Hope this is clear. > > Thanks > Kumar > > 2010/10/13 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; > >> Thanks, please provide a specific example rule too. >> >> Don't forget to keep your posts to the mailing list for the good of the >> community. >> >> >> On 12 October 2010 22:18, Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> Michale >>> Thanks for the response. >>> Here's the link for the thread . >>> >>> >>> http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Check-if-fact-is-subs... >>> >>> and the original about matching strings in two arrays. >>> >>> http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Matching-strings-in-t... >>> >>> >>> My use case is that I could have hundreds of rule and each rule could >>> have its own set of strings. >>> A fact object is run through these rules to see which ones are fired. >>> One of the condition to check is that the a list in the fact is not a >>> subset of list in the rule. >>> That is fire the rule only if list in fact is not a subset of list in >>> rule. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Kumar >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Michael Anstis < >>> michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> OK, I admit I don't have the original thread anymore. >>>> >>>> If I am not wrong (which is always a possibility) for Wolfgang's >>>> operator to work you'd need to externalise the superset from the rule into >>>> WorkingMemory. You could have a rule with higher salience construct the >>>> superset WM fact. >>>> >>>> If you don't mind re-posting or providing a link to the complete thread >>>> (on Nabble or somewhere) I'll happily try to help further. >>>> >>>> On 12 October 2010 17:23, <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> <quote author='Michael Anstis-2'> >>>>> >>>>> Wolfgang gave a great solution. >>>>> </quote> >>>>> Don't know if I'm missing something obvious here. I have a superset >>>>> in the rule itself. Each rule has a superset list. In this case how would I >>>>> use Wolfgang's solution. Its comparing through two arrays in runtime. I have >>>>> not been able to construct an array construct with specific values in the >>>>> rule itself. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

OK, unless I'm missing something else you should be able to do something like this:- rule "setup superset - Rule 1" when then Element ss = new Element("Super set - Rule 1", 1, 2, 3); insert(ss); end rule "rule 1" when $f : Fact() Element(name="Super set - Rule 1", $f.numbers subsetOf numbers) then //Do something end This uses Wolfgang's Element Class from his example creating custom operators and assumes Fact exposes a "numbers" property which returns a Collection. This remains untested but I have no reason to doubt Wolfgang. With kind regards, Mike 2010/10/13 Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; > Well the problem is in forming the DRL :) > My use case is each rule represents an item with its specific property. > Fact is a user property and I want to filter the items for this user based > on the users incoming property as facts. > > > I have been able to get it working like so but eval is not optimum for > Rete. I was hoping for a better solution that would utilize the Rete > optimization. > > Here's my unit test DRL. Note, I have a isNotSubset method in my fact > object and I'm getting the list from rule and doing a check. > > package com.test > import com.rule.OfferFact; > global java.util.List list > > rule rule_not_sub_set > when > $context : Fact() > eval($context.isNotSubset("SINGER","DANCER", "DOCTOR")) > then > list.add(drools.getRule().getName()); > end > > > 2010/10/13 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; > >> Not as clear as I'd hoped; can you provide an actual rule DRL? >> >> 2010/10/13 Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> Michael >>> Here are some examples >>> >>> Rule1 has "str1", "Str2", "Str3" >>> >>> Rule2 has "str2", "Str3", "Str5", "Str6", "Str7" >>> >>> Rule3 has "str1", "Str3", "Str6" >>> >>> etc. >>> >>> With fact1 that has "str1", "Str3" , since this is subset of values in >>> Rule1 and Rule3, they should not fire but Rule2 should fire >>> >>> With fact2 that has "str2", "Str6", "Str7", Rule 2 should not fire and >>> Rule1 and Rule3 should fire. >>> >>> Hope this is clear. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Kumar >>> >>> 2010/10/13 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> >>>> Thanks, please provide a specific example rule too. >>>> >>>> Don't forget to keep your posts to the mailing list for the good of the >>>> community. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12 October 2010 22:18, Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> Michale >>>>> Thanks for the response. >>>>> Here's the link for the thread . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Check-if-fact-is-subs... >>>>> >>>>> and the original about matching strings in two arrays. >>>>> >>>>> http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Matching-strings-in-t... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My use case is that I could have hundreds of rule and each rule could >>>>> have its own set of strings. >>>>> A fact object is run through these rules to see which ones are fired. >>>>> One of the condition to check is that the a list in the fact is not a >>>>> subset of list in the rule. >>>>> That is fire the rule only if list in fact is not a subset of list in >>>>> rule. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Kumar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Michael Anstis < >>>>> michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> OK, I admit I don't have the original thread anymore. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I am not wrong (which is always a possibility) for Wolfgang's >>>>>> operator to work you'd need to externalise the superset from the rule into >>>>>> WorkingMemory. You could have a rule with higher salience construct the >>>>>> superset WM fact. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you don't mind re-posting or providing a link to the complete >>>>>> thread (on Nabble or somewhere) I'll happily try to help further. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12 October 2010 17:23, <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> <quote author='Michael Anstis-2'> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wolfgang gave a great solution. >>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>> Don't know if I'm missing something obvious here. I have a superset >>>>>>> in the rule itself. Each rule has a superset list. In this case how would I >>>>>>> use Wolfgang's solution. Its comparing through two arrays in runtime. I have >>>>>>> not been able to construct an array construct with specific values in the >>>>>>> rule itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

All simple field constraints (the expressions you write between commas in a pattern) must follow the same syntactic pattern, which is [ <variable> ':' ] <fieldname> <restriction> This means that you may use a binding (e.g. "$foo :"), but the next thing must be a field name from the fact class. The <restriction> can have many forms; one of them is a name denoting an operator followed by the other operand, where you have a little more freedom, e.g., by using a bound variable or an access to a field or other forms. Hence, not being able to reverse the operands of subsetOf is not a compiler bug; it is a (perhaps regrettable) consequence of the overall structure of constraints. Thus, if you need an operator supersetOf (which is to subsetOf just like >= is to <=) you'll have to define it, too. This is simple, since it is practically the same as subsetOf, with some operand swapping down in the works. Cheers Wolfgang 2010/10/14 Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; Thanks for this tip. > This works but only if the second rule's $f.numbers is on the RHS and > numbers is on the LHS of the subsetOf operator. > i.e Element(name="Super set - Rule 1", numbers subsetOf $f.numbers) > > Which is what I want in my case (to check if values in the fact is subset > of values in the rule). > > If I wanted it the other way round though the compiler seems to > disapprove. > > I get a compiler error like so -- > > java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to compile rule > Unable to determine the used declarations. > [Error: unknown class or illegal statement: > org.mvel2.ParserContext@1aed5f9] > [Near : {... $f.numbers subsetOf dat ....}] > > If you try the Wolfgang's example and in the rule swap check like so - s1 > disjoint numbers > > e2: Element( this != e1, n2 : name, s1 disjoint numbers ) > > then you get error like so > > Unable to create Field Extractor for 's1' of '[ClassObjectType > class=com.test.context.Element]' in rule 'find disjoint pairs' : [Rule > name='find disjoint pairs'] > > Sounds like a compiler bug as the operation should be commutative right? > > > Thanks > Kumar > 2010/10/13 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; > >> OK, unless I'm missing something else you should be able to do something >> like this:- >> >> rule "setup superset - Rule 1" >> when >> then >> Element ss = new Element("Super set - Rule 1", 1, 2, 3); >> insert(ss); >> end >> >> rule "rule 1" >> when >> $f : Fact() >> Element(name="Super set - Rule 1", $f.numbers subsetOf numbers) >> then >> //Do something >> end >> >> This uses Wolfgang's Element Class from his example creating custom >> operators and assumes Fact exposes a "numbers" property which returns a >> Collection. This remains untested but I have no reason to doubt Wolfgang. >> >> With kind regards, >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> 2010/10/13 Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >>> Well the problem is in forming the DRL :) >>> My use case is each rule represents an item with its specific property. >>> Fact is a user property and I want to filter the items for this user based >>> on the users incoming property as facts. >>> >>> >>> I have been able to get it working like so but eval is not optimum for >>> Rete. I was hoping for a better solution that would utilize the Rete >>> optimization. >>> >>> Here's my unit test DRL. Note, I have a isNotSubset method in my fact >>> object and I'm getting the list from rule and doing a check. >>> >>> package com.test >>> import com.rule.OfferFact; >>> global java.util.List list >>> >>> rule rule_not_sub_set >>> when >>> $context : Fact() >>> eval($context.isNotSubset("SINGER","DANCER", "DOCTOR")) >>> then >>> list.add(drools.getRule().getName()); >>> end >>> >>> >>> 2010/10/13 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> >>>> Not as clear as I'd hoped; can you provide an actual rule DRL? >>>> >>>> 2010/10/13 Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> >>>> Michael >>>>> Here are some examples >>>>> >>>>> Rule1 has "str1", "Str2", "Str3" >>>>> >>>>> Rule2 has "str2", "Str3", "Str5", "Str6", "Str7" >>>>> >>>>> Rule3 has "str1", "Str3", "Str6" >>>>> >>>>> etc. >>>>> >>>>> With fact1 that has "str1", "Str3" , since this is subset of values >>>>> in Rule1 and Rule3, they should not fire but Rule2 should fire >>>>> >>>>> With fact2 that has "str2", "Str6", "Str7", Rule 2 should not fire and >>>>> Rule1 and Rule3 should fire. >>>>> >>>>> Hope this is clear. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Kumar >>>>> >>>>> 2010/10/13 Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, please provide a specific example rule too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't forget to keep your posts to the mailing list for the good of >>>>>> the community. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12 October 2010 22:18, Kumar Pandey <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Michale >>>>>>> Thanks for the response. >>>>>>> Here's the link for the thread . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Check-if-fact-is-subs... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and the original about matching strings in two arrays. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Matching-strings-in-t... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My use case is that I could have hundreds of rule and each rule >>>>>>> could have its own set of strings. >>>>>>> A fact object is run through these rules to see which ones are >>>>>>> fired. >>>>>>> One of the condition to check is that the a list in the fact is not >>>>>>> a subset of list in the rule. >>>>>>> That is fire the rule only if list in fact is not a subset of list >>>>>>> in rule. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> Kumar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Michael Anstis < >>>>>>> michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK, I admit I don't have the original thread anymore. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I am not wrong (which is always a possibility) for Wolfgang's >>>>>>>> operator to work you'd need to externalise the superset from the rule into >>>>>>>> WorkingMemory. You could have a rule with higher salience construct the >>>>>>>> superset WM fact. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you don't mind re-posting or providing a link to the complete >>>>>>>> thread (on Nabble or somewhere) I'll happily try to help further. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12 October 2010 17:23, <kumar.pandey(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <quote author='Michael Anstis-2'> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wolfgang gave a great solution. >>>>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>>>> Don't know if I'm missing something obvious here. I have a >>>>>>>>> superset in the rule itself. Each rule has a superset list. In this case how >>>>>>>>> would I use Wolfgang's solution. Its comparing through two arrays in >>>>>>>>> runtime. I have not been able to construct an array construct with specific >>>>>>>>> values in the rule itself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> > > > -- > Kumar Pandey > http://www.linkedin.com/in/kumarpandey > > _______________________________________________ > 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