1:36 p.m.
Hi,
I have a doubt regarding tuples. I created a rule using complex types
objects. I am comparing two complex type objecs which have parent-child
relationship eg. "ParentType.equals(ChildType)". I expect this to follow
java rule which allows such comparision. Now when I run the rules with
different values for fields in ParentType and ChildType (which means the
rule should fail) to my surprise it evals to TRUE. Also upon inspection, the
tuple shows me only the ChildType instance not the ParentType.
I would appreciate any help on this.
Regards,
Rajnikant
4:11 p.m.
We need some rule code to get a better idea of what's going on. Can you post some?
--- On Thu, 4/8/10, Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [rules-users] Tuples in Agenda Item.
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 1:36 PM
Hi,
I have a doubt regarding tuples. I created a rule using complex types objects. I am
comparing two complex type objecs which have parent-child relationship eg.
"ParentType.equals(ChildType)". I expect this to follow java rule which allows
such comparision. Now when I run the rules with different values for fields in ParentType
and ChildType (which means the rule should fail) to my surprise it evals to TRUE. Also
upon inspection, the tuple shows me only the ChildType instance not the ParentType.
I would appreciate any help on this.
Regards,
Rajnikant
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
12:01 a.m.
Hi,
**
Sorry for not being very clear. Here's the rule which I run:
**
**
*package rr*
*import com.thirdpillar.common.util.DroolsWorkingMemoryimport
com.parentchild.BaseType*
*import com.parentchild.ConcreteType1 *
**
*rule "s"*
*no-loop true *
*salience 999999 *
**
*when*
*DroolsWorkingMemory:DroolsWorkingMemory()*
*BaseType:BaseType()*
*ConcreteType1:ConcreteType1()*
*eval (*
*(*
*((BaseType.equals(ConcreteType1)))*
*)*
*)*
*then*
*BaseType.setString("Blah Blah!");*
*end *
where *ConcreteType1 *extends *BaseType. *
**
*Issues:*
1. Even for different values for fields in *ConcreteType1* and *BaseType, *the
rule gets fired.
2. I also do audit for the rules for which i need tuples so that I can
extract the objects out of it and evaluate the expression against Mvel. But
the tuple shows me only the *ConcreteType1* instance not the *BaseType. *Thus
getting wrong audit.
Regards,
Rajnikant Gupta
Sr. Software Engineer
GlobalLogic,Noida
09899530562
http://rkthinks.wordpress.com/
2010/4/9 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
We need some rule code to get a better idea of what's going on.
Can you
post some?
--- On *Thu, 4/8/10, Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com>* wrote:
From: Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [rules-users] Tuples in Agenda Item.
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 1:36 PM
Hi,
I have a doubt regarding tuples. I created a rule using complex types
objects. I am comparing two complex type objecs which have parent-child
relationship eg. "ParentType.equals(ChildType)". I expect this to follow
java rule which allows such comparision. Now when I run the rules with
different values for fields in ParentType and ChildType (which means the
rule should fail) to my surprise it evals to TRUE. Also upon inspection, the
tuple shows me only the ChildType instance not the ParentType.
I would appreciate any help on this.
Regards,
Rajnikant
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<http://mc/compose?to=rules-users@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
12:27 a.m.
The rule below is doing exactly what it should. Here's the rule expressed in pseudo
code:
when
1) there's an object of type DroolsWorkingMemory
2) there's an object of type BaseType
3) there's an object of type ConcreteType1
4) the BaseType object and ConcreteType1 object are equal
then
blah, blah, blah...
end
So if you have a single ConcreteType1 object, it fits the logical conditions of the rule.
It's a BaseType, a ConcreteType1, and is equal to itself.
I don't quite understand your two issues, though.
--- On Fri, 4/9/10, Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Tuples in Agenda Item.
To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 12:01 AM
Hi,
Sorry for not being very clear. Here's the rule which I run:
package rr
import com.thirdpillar.common.util.DroolsWorkingMemoryimport com.parentchild.BaseType
import com.parentchild.ConcreteType1
rule "s"
no-loop true
salience 999999
when
DroolsWorkingMemory:DroolsWorkingMemory()
BaseType:BaseType()
ConcreteType1:ConcreteType1()
eval (
(
((BaseType.equals(ConcreteType1)))
)
)
then
BaseType.setString("Blah Blah!");
end
where ConcreteType1 extends BaseType.
Issues:
1. Even for different values for fields in ConcreteType1 and BaseType, the rule gets
fired.
2. I also do audit for the rules for which i need tuples so that I can extract the objects
out of it and evaluate the expression against Mvel. But the tuple shows me only the
ConcreteType1 instance not the BaseType. Thus getting wrong audit.
Regards,
Rajnikant Gupta
Sr. Software Engineer
GlobalLogic,Noida
09899530562
http://rkthinks.wordpress.com/
2010/4/9 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
We need some rule code to get a better idea of what's going on. Can you post some?
--- On Thu, 4/8/10, Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [rules-users] Tuples in Agenda Item.
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 1:36 PM
Hi,
I have a doubt regarding tuples. I created a rule using complex types objects. I am
comparing two complex type objecs which have parent-child relationship eg.
"ParentType.equals(ChildType)". I expect this to follow java rule which allows
such comparision. Now when I run the rules with different values for fields in ParentType
and ChildType (which means the rule should fail) to my surprise it evals to TRUE. Also
upon inspection, the tuple shows me only the ChildType instance not the ParentType.
I would appreciate any help on this.
Regards,
Rajnikant
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
12:44 a.m.
Regarding Issue 1:
Even if you do have different objects of ConcreteType1, the rule is fired
for each of them, since each of these is equal to itself in terms of the
BaseType.
I also fail to understand Issue 2. But perhaps your misconception about base
type and subtype matching is also responsible for that.
Rule "s" looks strange for more than one reason. What is the
DroolsWorkingMemory() pattern supposed to achieve? Is it a general trigger
so that the rule only fires if one such object is present?
Leaving base and extended types aside, testing for the equality of two
objects of the same type must be done much more carefully. Assuming three
objects of TypeX, x1, x2, x3 with x1.equals(x2) and NOT x1.equals(x3) and a
rule like this:
rule "xxx"
when
o1 : TypeX()
o2 : TypeX()
eval( o1.equals( o2 ) )
then
...
This rule will fire 5 times, with the following activations:
<x1,x1>, <x2,x2>, <x3,x3>, <x1,x2>, <x2,x1>.
Using, e.g.,
o2:TypeX( this != o1 )
reduces this to two firings.
-W
2010/4/9 Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com>
Hi,
**
Sorry for not being very clear. Here's the rule which I run:
**
**
*package rr*
*import com.thirdpillar.common.util.DroolsWorkingMemoryimport
com.parentchild.BaseType*
*import com.parentchild.ConcreteType1 *
**
*rule "s"*
*no-loop true *
*salience 999999 *
**
*when*
*DroolsWorkingMemory:DroolsWorkingMemory()*
*BaseType:BaseType()*
*ConcreteType1:ConcreteType1()*
*eval (*
*(*
*((BaseType.equals(ConcreteType1)))*
*)*
*)*
*then*
*BaseType.setString("Blah Blah!");*
*end *
where *ConcreteType1 *extends *BaseType. *
**
*Issues:*
1. Even for different values for fields in *ConcreteType1* and *BaseType,
*the rule gets fired.
2. I also do audit for the rules for which i need tuples so that I can
extract the objects out of it and evaluate the expression against Mvel. But
the tuple shows me only the *ConcreteType1* instance not the *BaseType. *Thus
getting wrong audit.
Regards,
Rajnikant Gupta
Sr. Software Engineer
GlobalLogic,Noida
09899530562
http://rkthinks.wordpress.com/
2010/4/9 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
We need some rule code to get a better idea of what's going on. Can you
> post some?
>
> --- On *Thu, 4/8/10, Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [rules-users] Tuples in Agenda Item.
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 1:36 PM
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a doubt regarding tuples. I created a rule using complex types
> objects. I am comparing two complex type objecs which have parent-child
> relationship eg. "ParentType.equals(ChildType)". I expect this to follow
> java rule which allows such comparision. Now when I run the rules with
> different values for fields in ParentType and ChildType (which means the
> rule should fail) to my surprise it evals to TRUE. Also upon inspection, the
> tuple shows me only the ChildType instance not the ParentType.
>
> I would appreciate any help on this.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajnikant
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org<http://mc/compose?to=rules-users@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
4 a.m.
DroolsWorkingMemory is our custom class which contains asserted facts and
other custom objects based on our project requirement. It should not be
confused with "WorkingMemory" of Drools.
For issue 1, I assume that if I overwrite one field in ConcreteType1 to a
different value than that in BaseType, they are treated as diferrent
objects. Consider the xml snapshot of the two objects for eg:
*BaseType* object:
<com.parentchild.BaseType>
<Boolean>false</Boolean>
<Date>2010-04-09T00:00:00</Date>
<String>a</String>
<Double>0.0</Double>
</com.parentchild.BaseType>
*ConcreteType1* object:
<com.parentchild.ConcreteType1>
<Boolean>false</Boolean>
<Date>2010-04-09T00:00:00</Date>
<String>b</String>
<Double>0.0</Double>
<ConcreteType1Boolean>false</ConcreteType1Boolean>
</com.parentchild.ConcreteType1>
so I assume I have two objects BaseType(with value of String as "a") and
ConcreteType1 object (with value of String as "b"). The rule should evaluate
to false on the above assumption.
For issue 2, Sorry If i have misled, my only question was why does the Tuple
inside Agenda Item show only ConcreteType1 and not the BaseType, If both of
them are inserted in WorkingMemory. Doesn't the tuple contain all the
objects inserted in WM.
Regards,
Rajnikant Gupta
2010/4/9 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>
Regarding Issue 1:
Even if you do have different objects of ConcreteType1, the rule is fired
for each of them, since each of these is equal to itself in terms of the
BaseType.
I also fail to understand Issue 2. But perhaps your misconception about
base type and subtype matching is also responsible for that.
Rule "s" looks strange for more than one reason. What is the
DroolsWorkingMemory() pattern supposed to achieve? Is it a general trigger
so that the rule only fires if one such object is present?
Leaving base and extended types aside, testing for the equality of two
objects of the same type must be done much more carefully. Assuming three
objects of TypeX, x1, x2, x3 with x1.equals(x2) and NOT x1.equals(x3) and a
rule like this:
rule "xxx"
when
o1 : TypeX()
o2 : TypeX()
eval( o1.equals( o2 ) )
then
...
This rule will fire 5 times, with the following activations:
<x1,x1>, <x2,x2>, <x3,x3>, <x1,x2>, <x2,x1>.
Using, e.g.,
o2:TypeX( this != o1 )
reduces this to two firings.
-W
2010/4/9 Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com>
Hi,
> **
> Sorry for not being very clear. Here's the rule which I run:
> **
> **
> *package rr*
> *import com.thirdpillar.common.util.DroolsWorkingMemoryimport
> com.parentchild.BaseType*
> *import com.parentchild.ConcreteType1 *
> **
> *rule "s"*
> *no-loop true *
> *salience 999999 *
> **
> *when*
> *DroolsWorkingMemory:DroolsWorkingMemory()*
> *BaseType:BaseType()*
> *ConcreteType1:ConcreteType1()*
> *eval (*
> *(*
> *((BaseType.equals(ConcreteType1)))*
> *)*
> *)*
> *then*
> *BaseType.setString("Blah Blah!");*
> *end *
>
> where *ConcreteType1 *extends *BaseType. *
> **
> *Issues:*
> 1. Even for different values for fields in *ConcreteType1* and *BaseType,
> *the rule gets fired.
>
> 2. I also do audit for the rules for which i need tuples so that I can
> extract the objects out of it and evaluate the expression against Mvel. But
> the tuple shows me only the *ConcreteType1* instance not the *BaseType. *Thus
> getting wrong audit.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajnikant Gupta
> Sr. Software Engineer
> GlobalLogic,Noida
> 09899530562
>
> http://rkthinks.wordpress.com/
>
>
> 2010/4/9 Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com>
>
> We need some rule code to get a better idea of what's going on. Can
>> you post some?
>>
>> --- On *Thu, 4/8/10, Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com>* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Rajnikant Gupta <capricorn.raj(a)gmail.com>
>> Subject: [rules-users] Tuples in Agenda Item.
>> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 1:36 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a doubt regarding tuples. I created a rule using complex types
>> objects. I am comparing two complex type objecs which have parent-child
>> relationship eg. "ParentType.equals(ChildType)". I expect this to
follow
>> java rule which allows such comparision. Now when I run the rules with
>> different values for fields in ParentType and ChildType (which means the
>> rule should fail) to my surprise it evals to TRUE. Also upon inspection, the
>> tuple shows me only the ChildType instance not the ParentType.
>>
>> I would appreciate any help on this.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rajnikant
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>>
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<http://mc/compose?to=rules-users@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
4:13 a.m.
Presumably ConcreteType1 extends BaseType. In this case the rule will evaluate true as
ConcreateType1 IS A BaseType and therefore the same object matches both the o1 condition
and the o2 conditions. This is why the tuple contains only 1 entry as there was only one
unique object matched (o1 == o2).
Thomas
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Rajnikant Gupta
Sent: 09 April 2010 10:01
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Tuples in Agenda Item.
DroolsWorkingMemory is our custom class which contains asserted facts and other custom
objects based on our project requirement. It should not be confused with
"WorkingMemory" of Drools.
For issue 1, I assume that if I overwrite one field in ConcreteType1 to a different value
than that in BaseType, they are treated as diferrent objects. Consider the xml snapshot of
the two objects for eg:
BaseType object:
<com.parentchild.BaseType>
<Boolean>false</Boolean>
<Date>2010-04-09T00:00:00</Date>
<String>a</String>
<Double>0.0</Double>
</com.parentchild.BaseType>
ConcreteType1 object:
<com.parentchild.ConcreteType1>
<Boolean>false</Boolean>
<Date>2010-04-09T00:00:00</Date>
<String>b</String>
<Double>0.0</Double>
<ConcreteType1Boolean>false</ConcreteType1Boolean>
</com.parentchild.ConcreteType1>
so I assume I have two objects BaseType(with value of String as "a") and
ConcreteType1 object (with value of String as "b"). The rule should evaluate to
false on the above assumption.
For issue 2, Sorry If i have misled, my only question was why does the Tuple inside Agenda
Item show only ConcreteType1 and not the BaseType, If both of them are inserted in
WorkingMemory. Doesn't the tuple contain all the objects inserted in WM.
Regards,
Rajnikant Gupta
2010/4/9 Wolfgang Laun
<wolfgang.laun@gmail.com<mailto:wolfgang.laun@gmail.com>>
Regarding Issue 1:
Even if you do have different objects of ConcreteType1, the rule is fired for each of
them, since each of these is equal to itself in terms of the BaseType.
I also fail to understand Issue 2. But perhaps your misconception about base type and
subtype matching is also responsible for that.
Rule "s" looks strange for more than one reason. What is the
DroolsWorkingMemory() pattern supposed to achieve? Is it a general trigger so that the
rule only fires if one such object is present?
Leaving base and extended types aside, testing for the equality of two objects of the same
type must be done much more carefully. Assuming three objects of TypeX, x1, x2, x3 with
x1.equals(x2) and NOT x1.equals(x3) and a rule like this:
rule "xxx"
when
o1 : TypeX()
o2 : TypeX()
eval( o1.equals( o2 ) )
then
...
This rule will fire 5 times, with the following activations:
<x1,x1>, <x2,x2>, <x3,x3>, <x1,x2>, <x2,x1>.
Using, e.g.,
o2:TypeX( this != o1 )
reduces this to two firings.
-W
2010/4/9 Rajnikant Gupta
<capricorn.raj@gmail.com<mailto:capricorn.raj@gmail.com>>
Hi,
Sorry for not being very clear. Here's the rule which I run:
package rr
import com.thirdpillar.common.util.DroolsWorkingMemoryimport com.parentchild.BaseType
import com.parentchild.ConcreteType1
rule "s"
no-loop true
salience 999999
when
DroolsWorkingMemory:DroolsWorkingMemory()
BaseType:BaseType()
ConcreteType1:ConcreteType1()
eval (
(
((BaseType.equals(ConcreteType1)))
)
)
then
BaseType.setString("Blah Blah!");
end
where ConcreteType1 extends BaseType.
Issues:
1. Even for different values for fields in ConcreteType1 and BaseType, the rule gets
fired.
2. I also do audit for the rules for which i need tuples so that I can extract the objects
out of it and evaluate the expression against Mvel. But the tuple shows me only the
ConcreteType1 instance not the BaseType. Thus getting wrong audit.
Regards,
Rajnikant Gupta
Sr. Software Engineer
GlobalLogic,Noida
09899530562
http://rkthinks.wordpress.com/
2010/4/9 Greg Barton <greg_barton@yahoo.com<mailto:greg_barton@yahoo.com>>
We need some rule code to get a better idea of what's going on. Can you post some?
--- On Thu, 4/8/10, Rajnikant Gupta
<capricorn.raj@gmail.com<mailto:capricorn.raj@gmail.com>> wrote:
From: Rajnikant Gupta
<capricorn.raj@gmail.com<mailto:capricorn.raj@gmail.com>>
Subject: [rules-users] Tuples in Agenda Item.
To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 1:36 PM
Hi,
I have a doubt regarding tuples. I created a rule using complex types objects. I am
comparing two complex type objecs which have parent-child relationship eg.
"ParentType.equals(ChildType)". I expect this to follow java rule which allows
such comparision. Now when I run the rules with different values for fields in ParentType
and ChildType (which means the rule should fail) to my surprise it evals to TRUE. Also
upon inspection, the tuple shows me only the ChildType instance not the ParentType.
I would appreciate any help on this.
Regards,
Rajnikant
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<http://mc/compose?to=rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
**************************************************************************************
This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received
this message in error, please immediately notify the postmaster(a)nds.com and delete it from
your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be
monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please
do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United
Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603
8808 40-00
**************************************************************************************
________________________________
This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received
this message in error, please immediately notify the postmaster(a)nds.com and delete it from
your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be
monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes.
To protect the environment please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
An NDS Group Limited company. www.nds.com
5375
days inactive
5376
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Greg Barton -
Rajnikant Gupta -
Swindells, Thomas -
Wolfgang Laun