[rules-users] Similar question: changing operator from < to >

[djb]

Hi,

I just asked a question about conditionally negating conditions, in the
DRL... and this question is similar, since it comes down to the lack of a
ternary operator.  

I have rules where "LINK_OPERATOR" is either representative of >, == or <. 
I am using a rule template, and the problem is that it's not the parameters
that change, but the conditions themselves that change based on this
LINK_OPERATOR.  

If I call a function, then my chances for the RETE constant time evaluation
is shot.

Since this is a very fundamental part of the rules, must I again split my
rule template into 3 parts?  Then with the negation option, I'll need to
double that to 6 templates?  And if I have more operators, I'll have to
multiply that in too?

So, if speed is important, should I split the template?

Regards,
Daniel




-- 
View this message in context: http://n3.nabble.com/Similar-question-changing-operator-from-to-tp212583p212583.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.