[rules-users] controling rule execution

[Greg Barton]

Well, that solves it, then. :)

GreG

On Nov 1, 2008, at 9:37, "Edson Tirelli" <tirelli at post.com> wrote:


   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/20081101/91622c09/attachment.html