What attribute differentiates A1 from A2? Such scenarios usually are solved by an additional constraint... []s Edson 2008/1/4, Massi Gmail <mmquelo(a)gmail.com&gt;: -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development Office: +55 11 3529-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com

Forgetting the use of Drools how do you determine (programmatically) which is the main contract and which are related? Once you can answer this your Drools solution should become self evident. An attribute when $mc: Contract(type == "main" ) then #rule fired over "the" main contract end when $rc: Contract(type == "related" ) then #rule fired over "a" related contract end A relationship when $mc: Contract( ) then #rule fired over "the" main contract end when $mc: Contract( ) $rc: Contract( ) from $mc.contracts then #rule fired over "a" related contract end _____ From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Massi Gmail Sent: 05 January 2008 11:33 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Checking fact "id" ok But i think I do not need to differentiate them. I try to explain it better. I have got a set of "Contract" class Facts. All of them inserted into the working memory. But Just one of them is the "main contract", all the others all "related contracts". So , when i write a rule I need to distinguish between a "main contract" (which is unique along the session) and a "related contract". I should write rules like the followings: when $mc: Contract() from maincontract then #rule fired over "the" main contract end when $rc: Contract() from relatedcontract then #rule fired over "a" related contract end I think the only solution to do that is to make "maincontract" and "relatedcontracr" globals. But, if I make them globals, then the rule engine will not be notified about their changes and I do want it to be notified about it. Should I make them "globals" and "facts" as well? Can globals be inserted into the WM as well? Is it too horrible? :D Thank u anyway. Massi ----- Original Message ----- From: Edson Tirelli <mailto:tirelli@post.com> To: Rules Users List <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [rules-users] Checking fact "id" What attribute differentiates A1 from A2? Such scenarios usually are solved by an additional constraint... []s Edson 2008/1/4, Massi Gmail < mmquelo(a)gmail.com <mailto:mmquelo@gmail.com> >: Hi guys, Now I am strugglin' with "fact id checking" or whatever we can call it.... :D Let's take into account the followong scenario: I have class A (it's just a name) javabeans to be inserted into the WM. I define two objects of class A: A1 and A2. Somewhere I do "insert(A1)" and "insert(A2)" ( let's say I do it in the same package of R1 and R2..see below...) Then I define two different rules R1 and R2 that reason over class "A" facts (let's say R1 and R2 are in the same package) . The point is.... I want R1 to fire only on A1 and R2 only on A2. Is that possible in drools? Is there a sort of "fact id" I can reason over? I do not think globals will be of any help, cause in the guide i have read that globals should never be used within LHS. We should never reason over globals. Let me know. Massi _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development Office: +55 11 3529-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646 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

Thank You guys. I worked it out. I have the contracts (main and related) encapsulated within a parent object. So, once I did the assertion I checked the "pattern matched" fact agains the parent object. Thank You again. This ML is always usefull as usual! I really hope to be usefull as well to the few I can answer back. Bye Massi On Jan 7, 2008 9:27 PM, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: