10:16 a.m.
Hi,
If I have a ruleflow with a sequence of rule tasks, should an update be
called to reflect the state of the fact in the working memory? In another
words If all the rules are mutually exclusive within a rule task, will the
changes made in first rule task, if used as a condition in the next rule
task will be reflected without calling explicit update.
Thanks for your time and help.
1:08 p.m.
Any pointers?
On Tuesday, July 12, 2011, Wishing Carebear <wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
If I have a ruleflow with a sequence of rule tasks, should an update be called to reflect
the state of the fact in the working memory? In another words If all the rules are
mutually exclusive within a rule task, will the changes made in first rule task, if used
as a condition in the next rule task will be reflected without calling explicit update.
Thanks for your time and help.
10:20 a.m.
Any pointers please!!
On Tuesday, July 12, 2011, Wishing Carebear <wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Any pointers?
On Tuesday, July 12, 2011, Wishing Carebear <wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> If I have a ruleflow with a sequence of rule tasks, should an update be called to
reflect the state of the fact in the working memory? In another words If all the rules are
mutually exclusive within a rule task, will the changes made in first rule task, if used
as a condition in the next rule task will be reflected without calling explicit update.
>
> Thanks for your time and help.
>
10:28 a.m.
How about show your code and rules and maybe relevant parts of your
process? Would help understand your situation better. I would think
creating a simple test case that covers your scenario would not take
long to put together.
Thanks.
On 7/13/11 11:20 AM, Wishing Carebear wrote:
Any pointers please!!
On Tuesday, July 12, 2011, Wishing Carebear<wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Any pointers?
>
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2011, Wishing Carebear<wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Hi,
>> If I have a ruleflow with a sequence of rule tasks, should an update be called to
reflect the state of the fact in the working memory? In another words If all the rules are
mutually exclusive within a rule task, will the changes made in first rule task, if used
as a condition in the next rule task will be reflected without calling explicit update.
>>
>> Thanks for your time and help.
>>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
3:18 p.m.
PotentialTheft ruleflow-group updates a simple String
attribute(potentialTheftRating) as shown below. The next step
(checkTheftRating used as an example here) uses the potentialTheftRating in
the condition. Note that some of the attributes are list of objects where
the update is on the attribute of the contained object in the list.
*//TheftRating ruleflow-group
*
rule "Row 1 PotentialTheft.gdst"
ruleflow-group "TheftRating"
lock-on-active true
dialect "mvel"
when
$car : Vehicle( convertible == "true" )
then
System.out.println(" row 1 ");
//$car.setPotentialTheftRating( "high" );
modify($car){
setPotentialTheftRating( "high" );
}
//update($car);
end
#from row number: 2
rule "Row 2 PotentialTheft.gdst"
ruleflow-group "TheftRatinggrp"
dialect "mvel"
when
$car : Vehicle( price >= "45001" , price <= "200000"
)
then
$car.setPotentialTheftRating( "high" );
System.out.println("row number: 2");
end
*//CheckTheftRating ruleflow-group*
rule "1 CheckTheftRating"
ruleflow-group "CheckTheftRating"
salience 100
dialect "mvel"
when
$car : Vehicle( potentialTheftRating == "high" )
then
System.out.println(" CheckTheftRating is true");
end
Regards,
Ravi
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Tihomir Surdilovic <tsurdilo(a)redhat.com>wrote:
How about show your code and rules and maybe relevant parts of your
process? Would help understand your situation better. I would think
creating a simple test case that covers your scenario would not take
long to put together.
Thanks.
On 7/13/11 11:20 AM, Wishing Carebear wrote:
> Any pointers please!!
>
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2011, Wishing Carebear<wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Any pointers?
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2011, Wishing Carebear<wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> If I have a ruleflow with a sequence of rule tasks, should an update be
called to reflect the state of the fact in the working memory? In another
words If all the rules are mutually exclusive within a rule task, will the
changes made in first rule task, if used as a condition in the next rule
task will be reflected without calling explicit update.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time and help.
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
3:29 a.m.
No matter the ruleflow-group, all your rules are running in the same
session. If you modify the attributes of a fact, you must notify it to the
session (if you want to make inference with this new value).
For doing so you can use update() or modify(), they will have the same
result.
Best regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Esteban Aliverti
- Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com
- Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com
2011/7/13 Wishing Carebear <wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com>
modify
10:50 a.m.
Thanks Esteban,
Noticed that if I have an employee with the list of addresses and update an
attribute of the address item in the list, modify does not work and the
update needs to be called explicitly on the Employee to take effect. Is this
expected.
2011/7/14 Esteban Aliverti <esteban.aliverti(a)gmail.com>
No matter the ruleflow-group, all your rules are running in the
same
session. If you modify the attributes of a fact, you must notify it to the
session (if you want to make inference with this new value).
For doing so you can use update() or modify(), they will have the same
result.
Best regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Esteban Aliverti
- Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com
- Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com
2011/7/13 Wishing Carebear <wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com>
> modify
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
10:56 a.m.
I believe there was some talk of this recently (on perhaps the drools-dev
mailing list).
IIRC it concluded that this was the expected (system) behaviour of not
necessarily the expected (user) behaviour.
2011/7/14 Wishing Carebear <wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com>
Thanks Esteban,
Noticed that if I have an employee with the list of addresses and update an
attribute of the address item in the list, modify does not work and the
update needs to be called explicitly on the Employee to take effect. Is this
expected.
2011/7/14 Esteban Aliverti <esteban.aliverti(a)gmail.com>
> No matter the ruleflow-group, all your rules are running in the same
> session. If you modify the attributes of a fact, you must notify it to the
> session (if you want to make inference with this new value).
> For doing so you can use update() or modify(), they will have the same
> result.
>
> Best regards,
>
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
> Esteban Aliverti
> - Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com
> - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com
>
>
> 2011/7/13 Wishing Carebear <wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com>
>
>> modify
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
12:08 a.m.
Thanks Michael.
On Thursday, July 14, 2011, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I believe there was some talk of this recently (on perhaps the
drools-dev mailing list).
IIRC it concluded that this was the expected (system) behaviour of not necessarily the
expected (user) behaviour.
2011/7/14 Wishing Carebear <wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com>
Thanks Esteban,
Noticed that if I have an employee with the list of addresses and update an attribute of
the address item in the list, modify does not work and the update needs to be called
explicitly on the Employee to take effect. Is this expected.
2011/7/14 Esteban Aliverti <esteban.aliverti(a)gmail.com>
No matter the ruleflow-group, all your rules are running in the same session. If you
modify the attributes of a fact, you must notify it to the session (if you want to make
inference with this new value). For doing so you can use update() or modify(), they will
have the same result.
Best regards,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Esteban Aliverti
- Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com <http://www.plugtree.com>
- Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com
2011/7/13 Wishing Carebear <wishing.carebear(a)gmail.com>
modify
_______________________________________________
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
5376
days inactive
5379
days old
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Esteban Aliverti -
Michael Anstis -
Tihomir Surdilovic -
Wishing Carebear