[rules-users] Setting date during execution of rules.

Fri Mar 7 06:41:09 EST 2008

Effective dates in 4.0.x come from Calendar.getInstance() so unless you 
change the time that the java Calendar sees you cannot go back in time. 
Trunk, and 5.0 (TBR in Q2/Q3),  has a class called TimeMachine which 
allows you to set the date.

If you need control of this, and in 4.0.x, you will not be able to use 
the effective date attributes. Instead I recommend you create your own 
hashmap ofr effective dates per rule and use the agenda filter to 
excludes ones that aren't within the allowed dates.

Mark
Nimesh Muley wrote:
>
> I was not able to portray the right picture L. Here's another shot at 
> clarifying my situation.
>
>  
>
> Let's say we have a commission rule as follows
>
> rule "Commission Calculation *07-08*"
>
>           *date-effective "01-Apr-2007"*
>
>           *date-expires "30-Mar-2008"*
>
>           when
>
>                    ....
>
>           then
>
>                    ....
>
> end
>
>  
>
> Now for the next financial year we define a new rule as follows
>
> rule "Commission Calculation *08-09*"
>
>           *date-effective "01-Apr-2008"*
>
>           *date-expires "30-Mar-2009"*
>
>           when
>
>                    ....
>
>           then
>
>                    ....
>
> end
>
>  
>
> Now let's say /_today's date is 15^th April 2008_/. An agent is 
> promoted today with /_effective date as 1^st March 2008_/. Hence his 
> commission needs to be recalculated as per the "Commission Calculation 
> *07-08*" rule and *_not_* the effective rule as on today i.e. 
> "Commission Calculation *08-09*". For rest of the agents commission 
> would be calculated based on the rule effective today i.e. 15^th April 
> 2008. Hence a need to pass a date during execution of rule based on 
> which the right rule would be chosen.
>
>  
>
> Basically there is no legacy code as part of my example but a need to 
> fire the rules that are effective on a date other than the system date 
> always.
>
>  
>
> I have seen similar functionality in other rules engines too. Can this 
> be done in JBoss Rules? If yes, is TimeMachine the right way of doing it?
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
> - Nimesh
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org 
> [mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Scott Reed
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:40 PM
> *To:* Rules Users List
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Setting date during execution of rules.
>
>  
>
> As I understand it, the problem is that you have legacy code that uses 
> the system date in it's calculations and you cannot fix that so it 
> will take a date parameter, right? If so, then my recommendation is to 
> fix the legacy software if possible since messing with the system date 
> gives me the willies. If you can't fix it, then anything that can be 
> called from Java to set the system date 
> (e.g.Runtime.exec(...).waitfor()?) should be callable from the 'then' 
> part of a rule. Make that call, call your legacy code, then make the 
> call to set the date back. But that is so ugly, please don't tell 
> anyone I had anything to do with it.
>
> Nimesh Muley's message received 3/5/2008 1:25 AM:
>
> Hi,
>
>  
>
> Is there a way to set the date while executing the rules? The 
> effective dates would be checked against this date instead of today's 
> date. By default the effective dates would be checked with System 
> date. But in some cases we would need to execute the rules in a 
> 'back-dated' mode.
>
>  
>
> Use case.
>
> Let's say in insurance industry there are commission calculation rules 
> for an agent. On these rules the effective dates are appropriate (as 
> per their needs). Now when an agent is promoted and his/her promotion 
> date is couple of months back then we would want to calculate the 
> commission once again with the date as 2 months back.
>
>  
>
> The nearest I could see is TimeMachine, as this is being used during 
> execution of rules. Although I could not find a way to set the 
> TimeMachine in release 4.0.4.
>
>  
>
> Has anyone tried something like this before?
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
> - Nimesh
>
> "The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time, the last 10% takes 
> the other 90% of the time" - Murphy's Law
>
> While so very true, this is not Murphy's Law, which I think of as 
> "Whatever can go wrong, probably will." (see 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law)
> Your rule here is called the 90-90 rule: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> MASTEK LTD.
> Making a valuable difference
> Mastek in NASSCOM's 'India Top 20' Software Service Exporters List.
> In the US, we're called MAJESCOMASTEK
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not that of Mastek Limited, unless specifically indicated to that effect. Mastek Limited does not accept any responsibility or liability for it. This e-mail and attachments (if any) transmitted with it are confidential and/or privileged and solely for the use of the intended person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This e-mail and its attachments have been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. It is the responsibility of the recipient to run the virus check on e-mails and attachments before opening them. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly delete this e-mail from desktop and server.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20080307/889138a5/attachment.html 