[rules-users] followup - 'or' for different field constraints

[Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)]

Yet on the other hand, if/when it would be possible to use column binding in
field constraints, this functionality will be possible to achieve like this,
ie, rewrite this piece:

 

Record (fieldAsString matches "[xyz]" or fieldAsInt > 1, $myOtherField :
myOtherField)

Record ($field : field, fieldAsString matches "[xyz]" or fieldAsInt > 1,
myOtherField == $myOtherField)

Record (field == $field)

 

 

as

 

$r: (

    $r1: (

        Record (fieldAsString matches "[xyz]") or

        Record (fieldAsInt > 1)

    )

    $r2: (

        Record (fieldAsString matches "[xyz]", myOtherField ==
$r1.myOtherField) or

        Record (fieldAsInt > 1, myOtherField == $r1.myOtherField)

    )

    Record (field == $r2.field)

)

 

More verbose, but I think it should work the same way....

 

  _____  

From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Olenin, Vladimir
(MOH)
Sent: 27 March 2007 11:02
To: Rules Users List
Subject: [rules-users] followup - 'or' for different field constraints

 

... the only thing that would not be allowed is to do the binding on the
this 'connective constraint', since it would make sense. Eg, Record
($invalidBinding : fieldAsString matches "[zxc]" or fieldAsInt > 0) ) ,
since it's kind of 'views' for the 'field' variable, while this one will
work: Record ($correctBidning : field, fieldAsString matches "[zxc]" or
fieldAsInt > 0) ), ie you need to bind the 'original' field, NOT the views.
To think of this, it would actually be need to the <field>AsString,
<field>AsInt, etc getters to be autogenerated.... Or even better - do that
behind the scene depending on the context, if there is no ambiguity
involved...

 

Vlad

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070327/6ad07a9b/attachment.html