[rules-users] Arbitrary problem using OR?

[wasabifan]

In getting our business rules written, we used a lot of domain experts to
help write our rules.  I now have the exciting job of verifying and fixing
these rules as needed.  When possible, I had asked that they use OR
statements in a single rule, as opposed to breaking them out into multiple
rules for brefity and ease of maintenance.

However, in trying to get these rules to function, I find myself time and
time again having to break OR logic  into multiple rules to get it to work
(the || internal to objects seems to work okay).  I have tried both prefix
and infix OR.  Is there some limit to the complexity of when OR will or will
not work?  I have tried using parenthesis to make the logic very explicit,
but often breaking it into multiple rules seems to be the only remedy.

Is there some principle to go by, or is this a matter of trial and error
when rules must be broken into multiple rules in the DRL?  My understanding
was that the OR CE basically would be broken into multiple rules
automagically, which is what I end up doing manually in the DRL.  Have you
heard of any problems with this functionality?
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Arbitrary-problem-using-OR--tf4481210.html#a12778131
Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.