[rules-users] controling rule execution

[Edson Tirelli]

   activation-group allows you to define mutually exclusive groups of rules
where when one fire, it cancel the others.

   []s
   Edson

2008/10/31 Greg Barton <greg_barton at yahoo.com>

> Yep, it would affect all rules that could match on those facts.
>
> You could have a control fact per child rule that could potentially match.
>  The child rule would include an existence check for that fact in it's
> conditions.  The parent rule would retract the fact to prevent the child
> rule from firing.
>
> A bit more clunky than the custom agenda filter approach, but:
>
> 1) I haven't tested the custom agenda filter thing, so I'm just guessing
> it'd work. (I'm pretty sure it would, though.)
> 2) It would be more portable across other rule engines. (If that's
> important to you.)
>
> --- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy <techluver007 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: techy <techluver007 at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule execution
> > To: rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 2:44 PM
> > Thanks Greg and Joe.
> > I think i should have mentioned this before.
> > I can also have other parent rule node in the tree
> > structure which tests
> > against same fact.  Each parent rule node should only
> > control its child rule
> > nodes, but not other parent rule node and  child rule node.
> >
> > If I do retract, won't it affect other parent rule
> > node?
> >
> >
> > Greg Barton wrote:
> > >
> > > You may consider the other suggestion of retracting
> > the fact(s) that would
> > > trigger the child rule.  It's the more
> > "natural" way of going about it.
> > >
> > > What's driving this design choice?
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 10/31/08, techy
> > <techluver007 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: techy <techluver007 at gmail.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [rules-users] controling rule
> > execution
> > >> To: rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > >> Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 8:24 AM
> > >> Thanks Greg.
> > >> child rule should be reactivated if parent's
> > conditions
> > >> for some other fact
> > >> are false.
> > >> this should happen for  each fact.  Parent's
> > condition
> > >> should decide whether
> > >> child rule should be executed or not for each
> > fact. If
> > >> parent's conditions
> > >> are true, then don't execute child rule and
> > vice versa.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Greg Barton wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > A combination of higher priority parent rules
> > with a
> > >> custom agenda filter,
> > >> > activated when the parent rule fires, that
> > prevents
> > >> the child rule from
> > >> > firing.
> > >> >
> > >> > Just a guess.
> > >> >
> > >> > So, after the child rule is initially
> > prevented from
> > >> firing, can it be
> > >> > reactivated?  If so, when and under what
> > conditions?
> > >> >
> > >> > --- On Thu, 10/30/08, techy
> > >> <techluver007 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> From: techy
> > <techluver007 at gmail.com>
> > >> >> Subject: [rules-users] controling rule
> > execution
> > >> >> To: rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > >> >> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 11:18
> > PM
> > >> >> Hello,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I would like to have the rules
> > parent/child
> > >> structure. I
> > >> >> don't want the
> > >> >> child rules to be executed  when
> > parent's
> > >> conditions
> > >> >> are true(i.e
> > >> >> consequence is  executed) even if
> > child's
> > >> conditions
> > >> >> are true. How Can I
> > >> >> achieve that in drools?
> > >> >> Please clarify.
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> View this message in context:
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20260028.html
> > >> >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list
> > archive
> > >> at
> > >> >> Nabble.com.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > >> >> rules-users mailing list
> > >> >> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > rules-users mailing list
> > >> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > >> >
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> View this message in context:
> > >>
> > http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20265921.html
> > >> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive
> > at
> > >> Nabble.com.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> rules-users mailing list
> > >> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > >>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://www.nabble.com/controling-rule-execution-tp20260028p20272962.html
> > Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at
> > Nabble.com.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>



-- 
 Edson Tirelli
 JBoss Drools Core Development
 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20081101/47376cef/attachment.html