10:47 a.m.
Hi,
I have finally gained a tiny bit of control (and maybe even some competency) in using the
DROOLs language operators 'no-loop' and 'lock-on-active' as a basis for
controlling rule set firing behavior in response to Fact mutation events (during
consequence processing).
I now want to (competently!) use DROOLs language tactics that give me ever finer grained
control over managing rule set firing behavior on Fact mutation events. Specifically, I
want to be able to implement some form of 'Guarded entry/block' controls.
E.g. let's say I have a Fact (InsertedFactPOJO) that I insert into the KS and want to
have its 'fireAllRules()' AgendaSet(s) renedered in exact incremental ordinal
stages and in perfect isolation. To do this, I am testing the inclusion of a
'countdownLatch' Semaphore reference as a Fact member (initialized to N=`total
rule count` value). I then use this to 'Guard' individual rule entry, by
generating an explicit predicate participant
(InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == i) )
@ each ith Rule producedby my template.
Is this approach a valid/sound/complete way to implement 'Guarded entry/block'
controls in DROOLs? Is there a better way?
As always, my sincerest gratitude to this community for its generosity (and its genius).
Ben
package com.ms.fast.triclear.eligibility.rules.drools_community.questions.posted;
import com.ms.fast.triclear.eligibility.InsertedFactPOJO;
//fact:(backed by Class 'InsertedFactPOJO' has
//- 'countdownLatch' (Semaphore) member
//- 'aList' (List)member
rule "RULE_ALL_RULES_HAVE_FIRED_ONCE_ORDINALLY"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0)
then
System.out.format("\tALL RULES have fired *EXACTLY* once, *EXACTLY* ordinally.
"+
" fact.countdownLatch=%d \n\t fact.aList=%s\n\n",
fact.countdownLatch,
fact.aList.toString());
end
rule "RULE_3"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 3)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"3"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
3",fact.countdownLatch);
modify (fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 3 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
rule "RULE_2"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 2)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"2"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
2",fact.countdownLatch);
modify (fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 2 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
rule "RULE_1"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 1)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"1"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
1",fact.countdownLatch);
modify (fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 1 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
Ben D Cotton III
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094
ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com>
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
11 a.m.
Have you looked at agenda-group or ruleflow-group? You've reinvented some of their
functionality here.
________________________________
From: "Cotton, Ben" <Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com>
To: "rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Cc: "O'Brien, Patrick" <Patrick.O'Brien(a)morganstanley.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:47 AM
Subject: [rules-users] DROOLs 'Guarded entry/block' tactics for Rules
synchronization and ordinality?
Hi,
I have finally gained a tiny bit of control (and maybe even some competency) in using the
DROOLs language operators ‘no-loop’ and ‘lock-on-active’ as a basis for controlling rule
set firing behavior in response to Fact mutation events (during consequence processing).
I now want to (competently!) use DROOLs language tactics that give me ever finer grained
control over managing rule set firing behavior on Fact mutation events. Specifically, I
want to be able to implement some form of ‘Guarded entry/block’ controls.
E.g. let’s say I have a Fact (InsertedFactPOJO) that I insert into the KS and want to
have its ‘fireAllRules()’ AgendaSet(s) renedered in exact incremental ordinal stages and
in perfect isolation. To do this, I am testing the inclusion of a ‘countdownLatch’
Semaphore reference as a Fact member (initialized to N=`total rule count` value). I then
use this to ‘Guard’ individual rule entry, by generating an explicit predicate participant
(InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == i) )
@ each ith Rule producedby my template.
Is this approach a valid/sound/complete way to implement ‘Guarded entry/block’ controls in
DROOLs? Is there a better way?
As always, my sincerest gratitude to this community for its generosity (and its genius).
Ben
packagecom.ms.fast.triclear.eligibility.rules.drools_community.questions.posted;
importcom.ms.fast.triclear.eligibility.InsertedFactPOJO;
//fact:(backed by Class 'InsertedFactPOJO' has
//- 'countdownLatch' (Semaphore) member
//- 'aList' (List)member
rule"RULE_ALL_RULES_HAVE_FIRED_ONCE_ORDINALLY"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0)
then
System.out.format("\tALL RULES have fired *EXACTLY* once, *EXACTLY* ordinally.
"+
" fact.countdownLatch=%d \n\t fact.aList=%s\n\n",
fact.countdownLatch,
fact.aList.toString());
end
rule"RULE_3"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 3)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"3"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
3",fact.countdownLatch);
modify(fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 3 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
rule"RULE_2"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 2)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"2"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
2",fact.countdownLatch);
modify(fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 2 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
rule"RULE_1"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 1)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"1"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
1",fact.countdownLatch);
modify(fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 1 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
Ben D Cotton III
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094
ben.cotton(a)ms.com
________________________________
NOTICE:
Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within
the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy
all electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately.
Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan
Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at
the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will
send the contents to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the
foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
11:11 a.m.
New subject: DROOLs 'Guarded entry/block' tactics for Rules synchronization and ordinality?
Ø Have you looked at agenda-group or ruleflow-group?
Sweet.
Ø You've reinvented some of their functionality here.
Gak! I figured I must have been doing that (and that’s the last thing I want to do).
Got stuck in my “Drools newbie deep dive” … knew had to hit this forum and “surface for
air”. THANKS!
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Greg Barton
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:00 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] DROOLs 'Guarded entry/block' tactics for Rules
synchronization and ordinality?
Have you looked at agenda-group or ruleflow-group? You've reinvented some of their
functionality here.
________________________________
From: "Cotton, Ben"
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>>
To: "rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>"
<rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
Cc: "O'Brien, Patrick" <Patrick.O'Brien(a)morganstanley.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:47 AM
Subject: [rules-users] DROOLs 'Guarded entry/block' tactics for Rules
synchronization and ordinality?
Hi,
I have finally gained a tiny bit of control (and maybe even some competency) in using the
DROOLs language operators ‘no-loop’ and ‘lock-on-active’ as a basis for controlling rule
set firing behavior in response to Fact mutation events (during consequence processing).
I now want to (competently!) use DROOLs language tactics that give me ever finer grained
control over managing rule set firing behavior on Fact mutation events. Specifically, I
want to be able to implement some form of ‘Guarded entry/block’ controls.
E.g. let’s say I have a Fact (InsertedFactPOJO) that I insert into the KS and want to
have its ‘fireAllRules()’ AgendaSet(s) renedered in exact incremental ordinal stages and
in perfect isolation. To do this, I am testing the inclusion of a ‘countdownLatch’
Semaphore reference as a Fact member (initialized to N=`total rule count` value). I then
use this to ‘Guard’ individual rule entry, by generating an explicit predicate
participant
(InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == i) )
@ each ith Rule producedby my template.
Is this approach a valid/sound/complete way to implement ‘Guarded entry/block’ controls in
DROOLs? Is there a better way?
As always, my sincerest gratitude to this community for its generosity (and its genius).
Ben
package com.ms.fast.triclear.eligibility.rules.drools_community.questions.posted;
import com.ms.fast.triclear.eligibility.InsertedFactPOJO;
//fact:(backed by Class 'InsertedFactPOJO' has
//- 'countdownLatch' (Semaphore) member
//- 'aList' (List)member
rule "RULE_ALL_RULES_HAVE_FIRED_ONCE_ORDINALLY"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0)
then
System.out.format("\tALL RULES have fired *EXACTLY* once, *EXACTLY* ordinally.
"+
" fact.countdownLatch=%d \n\t fact.aList=%s\n\n",
fact.countdownLatch,
fact.aList.toString());
end
rule "RULE_3"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 3)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"3"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
3",fact.countdownLatch);
modify (fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 3 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
rule "RULE_2"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 2)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"2"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
2",fact.countdownLatch);
modify (fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 2 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
rule "RULE_1"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 1)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"1"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
1",fact.countdownLatch);
modify (fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 1 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
Ben D Cotton III
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094
ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com>
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
5:13 p.m.
New subject: DROOLs 'Guarded entry/block' tactics for Rules synchronization and ordinality?
Not a problem. Actually I prefer to perform flow control using working memory objects
like that instead of using the keywords, but I'm old school. :)
GreG
On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:11, "Cotton, Ben" <Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com>
wrote:
Ø Have you looked at agenda-group or ruleflow-group?
Sweet.
Ø You've reinvented some of their functionality here.
Gak! I figured I must have been doing that (and that’s the last thing I want to do).
Got stuck in my “Drools newbie deep dive” … knew had to hit this forum and “surface for
air”. THANKS!
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Greg Barton
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:00 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] DROOLs 'Guarded entry/block' tactics for Rules
synchronization and ordinality?
Have you looked at agenda-group or ruleflow-group? You've reinvented some of their
functionality here.
From: "Cotton, Ben" <Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com>
To: "rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Cc: "O'Brien, Patrick" <Patrick.O'Brien(a)morganstanley.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:47 AM
Subject: [rules-users] DROOLs 'Guarded entry/block' tactics for Rules
synchronization and ordinality?
Hi,
I have finally gained a tiny bit of control (and maybe even some competency) in using the
DROOLs language operators ‘no-loop’ and ‘lock-on-active’ as a basis for controlling rule
set firing behavior in response to Fact mutation events (during consequence processing).
I now want to (competently!) use DROOLs language tactics that give me ever finer grained
control over managing rule set firing behavior on Fact mutation events. Specifically, I
want to be able to implement some form of ‘Guarded entry/block’ controls.
E.g. let’s say I have a Fact (InsertedFactPOJO) that I insert into the KS and want to
have its ‘fireAllRules()’ AgendaSet(s) renedered in exact incremental ordinal stages and
in perfect isolation. To do this, I am testing the inclusion of a ‘countdownLatch’
Semaphore reference as a Fact member (initialized to N=`total rule count` value). I then
use this to ‘Guard’ individual rule entry, by generating an explicit predicate
participant
(InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == i) )
@ each ith Rule producedby my template.
Is this approach a valid/sound/complete way to implement ‘Guarded entry/block’ controls
in DROOLs? Is there a better way?
As always, my sincerest gratitude to this community for its generosity (and its genius).
Ben
package com.ms.fast.triclear.eligibility.rules.drools_community.questions.posted;
import com.ms.fast.triclear.eligibility.InsertedFactPOJO;
//fact:(backed by Class 'InsertedFactPOJO' has
//- 'countdownLatch' (Semaphore) member
//- 'aList' (List)member
rule "RULE_ALL_RULES_HAVE_FIRED_ONCE_ORDINALLY"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0)
then
System.out.format("\tALL RULES have fired *EXACTLY* once, *EXACTLY* ordinally.
"+
" fact.countdownLatch=%d \n\t fact.aList=%s\n\n",
fact.countdownLatch,
fact.aList.toString());
end
rule "RULE_3"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 3)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"3"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
3",fact.countdownLatch);
modify (fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 3 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
rule "RULE_2"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 2)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"2"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
2",fact.countdownLatch);
modify (fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 2 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
rule "RULE_1"
when
fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 1)
//bunch of other L-Value PREDICATES
then
System.out.format("\t %20.20s"+
" \t(DROOLS agenda: consequence fired for L-value predicate
match @RULE="+
"1"+" -- fact.countDownLatch=%d)\n", "Rule
1",fact.countdownLatch);
modify (fact) {
countdownLatch = fact.countdownLatch - 1,
aList.add("Rule 1 pattern-match event added to POJO 'aList'
field");
}
end
Ben D Cotton III
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094
ben.cotton(a)ms.com
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
1:22 a.m.
On 30/11/2012, Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Not a problem. Actually I prefer to perform flow control using
working
memory objects like that instead of using the keywords, but I'm old school.
:)
GreG
Agenda groups provide a mechanism that's difficult to emulate using
"guard objects", i.e., the stack-ish behaviour, with automatic return
to the previously active group once all activations of the current group
are exhausted.
> From: "Cotton, Ben"
<Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com>
>
> I now want to (competently!) use DROOLs language tactics that give me ever
> finer grained control over managing rule set firing behavior on Fact
> mutation events. Specifically, I want to be able to implement some form
> of ‘Guarded entry/block’ controls.
There may be some good reason for "fine grained control" every now and then,
but basically this contravenes the fundamental idea of rules being
perfectly capable of determining the right order - if written
correctly, that is, by judiciously selecting fact properties by
constraints.
> rule "RULE_ALL_RULES_HAVE_FIRED_ONCE_ORDINALLY"
> when
> fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
> InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0)
> then
Why not a single Pattern?
fact:InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0)
If (and only if) there is not more than a single InsertedFactPOJO in
WM it doesn't matter (except confuse readers) but otherwise it
produces more or less disturbing effects.
-W
12:20 p.m.
Ø Why not a single Pattern?
Ø fact:InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0) If (and only if) there is not more than
a single InsertedFactPOJO in WM it doesn't matter (except confuse readers) but
otherwise it produces more or less disturbing effects.
Interesting. For my case (luckily?) I have a flow of control that definitely only
includes a single InsertedFactPOJO in WM.
Where can I best isolate my Drools readings, sample exercises et. al. Drools discovery
efforts so that I can (some day) competently answer your question "Why not a single
pattern?" .... Is there a place in the Drools literature that explicitly addresses
these "disturbing effects"?
THANKS WOLFGANG!
...
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:22 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] DROOLs 'Guarded entry/block' tactics for Rules
synchronization and ordinality?
On 30/11/2012, Greg Barton
<greg_barton@yahoo.com<mailto:greg_barton@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
Not a problem. Actually I prefer to perform flow control using
working memory objects like that instead of using the keywords, but
I'm old school.
:)
GreG
Agenda groups provide a mechanism that's difficult to emulate using "guard
objects", i.e., the stack-ish behaviour, with automatic return to the previously
active group once all activations of the current group are exhausted.
>> From: "Cotton, Ben"
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>> I now want to (competently!) use DROOLs language tactics that
give me
> ever finer grained control over managing rule set firing behavior
on
> Fact mutation events. Specifically, I want to be able to
implement
> some form of 'Guarded entry/block' controls.
There may be some good reason for "fine grained control" every now and then, but
basically this contravenes the fundamental idea of rules being perfectly capable of
determining the right order - if written correctly, that is, by judiciously selecting fact
properties by constraints.
> rule "RULE_ALL_RULES_HAVE_FIRED_ONCE_ORDINALLY"
> when
> fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
> InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0) then
Why not a single Pattern?
fact:InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0) If (and only if) there is not more than a
single InsertedFactPOJO in WM it doesn't matter (except confuse readers) but otherwise
it produces more or less disturbing effects.
-W
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
1:28 p.m.
Whenever you have a LHS with a pattern
SomeType(...)
this results in any fact in working memory of this type being bound to
this pattern, and the rule
fires for any binding, i.e., once for each fact of type SomeType. If you
have
SomeType(...)
SomeType(...)
it will bind a single fact in working memory to both patterns, but as
soon as you have
more than one fact, it will bind all possible combinations. For two
facts, you'll have
(#1,#1), (#1,#2), (#2,#1) and (#2,#2).
-W
On 1 December 2012 19:20, Cotton, Ben <Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com> wrote:
Ø Why not a single Pattern?
Ø fact:InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0) If (and only if) there is
not more than a single InsertedFactPOJO in WM it doesn't matter (except
confuse readers) but otherwise it produces more or less disturbing effects.
Interesting. For my case (luckily?) I have a flow of control that
definitely only includes a single InsertedFactPOJO in WM.
Where can I best isolate my Drools readings, sample exercises et. al. Drools
discovery efforts so that I can (some day) competently answer your question
“Why not a single pattern?” …. Is there a place in the Drools literature
that explicitly addresses these “disturbing effects”?
THANKS WOLFGANG!
…
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:22 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] DROOLs 'Guarded entry/block' tactics for Rules
synchronization and ordinality?
On 30/11/2012, Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not a problem. Actually I prefer to perform flow control using
> working memory objects like that instead of using the keywords, but I'm
> old school.
> :)
>
> GreG
Agenda groups provide a mechanism that's difficult to emulate using "guard
objects", i.e., the stack-ish behaviour, with automatic return to the
previously active group once all activations of the current group are
exhausted.
>> From: "Cotton, Ben" <Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com>
>>
>> I now want to (competently!) use DROOLs language tactics that give me
>> ever finer grained control over managing rule set firing behavior on
>> Fact mutation events. Specifically, I want to be able to implement
>> some form of ‘Guarded entry/block’ controls.
There may be some good reason for "fine grained control" every now and then,
but basically this contravenes the fundamental idea of rules being perfectly
capable of determining the right order - if written correctly, that is, by
judiciously selecting fact properties by constraints.
>> rule "RULE_ALL_RULES_HAVE_FIRED_ONCE_ORDINALLY"
>> when
>> fact:InsertedFactPOJO()
>> InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0) then
Why not a single Pattern?
fact:InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0) If (and only if) there is not
more than a single InsertedFactPOJO in WM it doesn't matter (except confuse
readers) but otherwise it produces more or less disturbing effects.
-W
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions
or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute,
advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication
in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the
sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality
or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is
subject to terms available at the following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these links,
please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By
messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
2:44 p.m.
Got it. Very well explained. Very relevant to understand. THANKS!
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-DROOLs-Guarded-entry-block-...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
4375
days inactive
4377
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Cotton, Ben -
Cotton.Ben
-
Greg Barton -
Wolfgang Laun