[rules-dev] Bugs/Problems with 3.1.0M1

[Arjun Dhar]

Mark Proctor <mproctor <at> codehaus.org> writes:

> 
> 
> btw SyncrhonisedWorkingMemory used the same interface as WorkingMemory.
> StatefulSession just extends WorkingMemory, so the API change for you
> should be minimal.
> Mark
> Mark Proctor wrote:

Q) ok! ..So how do I use "WorkingMemoryFileLogger" with a StatelessSession and 
how do I obtain Fact Handles to the facts I asserted?

Feature Requested:
------------------
Q) also, I wish to override the conflict resolution strategy to only have the 
most significant rule execute and not bother about arranging the rest. Winner 
takes all strategy. In 4 are you planning on anything for this? Ok, I think 
this topic deserves a little more respect:

When we create an agenda based on priorities for the rules suited to fire; two 
things need to be done
 1. Intelligence to figure out in certain cases what is priority.
Example: 
Rain = True <-- More generic Rule
Party = False

Rain = True <-- More specific rule
Umbrella = True
Party = True

...i've observed that in such scenarios, the rule engine can be intelligent 
enoug to figure out that a more specific case exists because it is more apt for 
that situation. Ofcourse GIGO, if the analyst is trying to confuse an engine, 
thats illogical in the first place. But logic holds here.

2. When priorities are assigned, the Rule with the highest priority executes 
firest. But that assumption is incorrect as there can be 3 possibilites:
 2.1. Only execute the most important rule (Short Curcuit)
 2.2. Most significant rule, fires first (Like we have when I last checked)
 2.3. Most significant rule should actually execute last, because we want it to 
prevail over the results carried out by others.
..While 2.3 can achieved in a less sophisticated manner by reversing the 
priorities 2.1. ... there is no ready made way to achieve 2.1. 

If there is, please let me know. If not, and i build it would you find 
acceptance in yr next release?

thanks,
Arjun