[rules-users] Working Memory and agenda-group

[Maciej Gowin]

Of course it's only my guess. I'm not an expert. Please correct me if I'm
wrong :)

2011/12/30 Maciej Gowin <maciej.abacus.gowin at gmail.com>

> It's not the different WorkingMemory. It's all about class name confusion.
> It looks like the class type does not match.
> Please try to create SomeDefault in standard way, not with 'declare'
> statement. It works ok.
>
>
> 2011/12/30 Mike Key <mikey at zenbitz.com>
>
>> I guess that is exactly my confusion :)  Why would it be that doing the
>> exact same thing, one inserting into working memory from a function and the
>> other simply doing it within the RHS of the rule cause downstream rules not
>> to fire in the function call case?  The rules are both in the same
>> agenda-group, both the function example and the insert from the RHS of the
>> rule example are simply inserting a new fact into working memory.
>>
>> It makes it seem like the function call is somehow inserting into a
>> *different* working memory, which I'm sure is not the case, but the
>> downstream rule does not fire none-the-less.
>>
>>  Thanks for any clarity.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Mauricio Salatino <salaboy at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Agenda-groups segment the agenda and not the working memory :)
>>> Probably that is part of your confusion.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/12/29 Mike Key <mikey at zenbitz.com>:
>>> > I am a fairly new Drools user and am trying to understand how working
>>> memory
>>> > is segmented when using agenda groups.  I have an agenda-group that has
>>> > focus set immediately from the session as follows with a few objects
>>> being
>>> > inserted:
>>> >
>>> > ksession.insert(objectA);
>>> > ksession.insert(objectB);
>>> > ksession.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup("Foo").setFocus();
>>> >
>>> > I have 2 rules simplified down to illustrate my confusion.  The first
>>> rule
>>> > simply sets some default values evaluated in the second rule if objectA
>>> > exists.  In the example that works I set the defaults in the RHS
>>> explicitly.
>>> >  However I want to use these defaults from different agenda-groups, so
>>> when
>>> > I put them in a function, the second rule never fires, the activation
>>> is
>>> > created for the first rule but never the second.  Can someone tell me
>>> why
>>> > the use of a function seems to alter the truth of the rule?
>>> >
>>> > THIS WORKS:
>>> >
>>> > declare SomeDefault
>>> >   minValueA : Integer
>>> >   minValueB : Double
>>> >   maxValueB : Double
>>> > end
>>> >
>>> > rule "Check Object A and Set Default"
>>> >   agenda-group "Foo"
>>> >   salience 100
>>> >   when
>>> >     $a : ObjectA()
>>> >   then
>>> >     default = new SomeDefault()
>>> >     default.minValueA = 100
>>> >     default.minValueB = 20.0
>>> >     default.maxValueB = 20000.0
>>> >     insert(default)
>>> > end
>>> >
>>> > rule "Use the defaults"
>>> >   agenda-group "Foo"
>>> >   salience 100
>>> >   when
>>> >     $default : SomeDefault()
>>> >   then
>>> >     System.out.println("Default minA=" + $default.minValueA)
>>> > end
>>> >
>>> > THIS DOES NOT WORK:
>>> >
>>> > declare SomeDefault
>>> >   minValueA : Integer
>>> >   minValueB : Double
>>> >   maxValueB : Double
>>> > end
>>> >
>>> > rule "Check Object A and Set Default"
>>> >   agenda-group "Foo"
>>> >   salience 100
>>> >   when
>>> >     $a : ObjectA()
>>> >   then
>>> >     insertDefault(drools.getWorkingMemory())
>>> > end
>>> >
>>> > rule "Use the defaults"
>>> >   agenda-group "Foo"
>>> >   salience 90
>>> >   when
>>> >     $default : SomeDefault()
>>> >   then
>>> >     System.out.println("Default minA=" + $default.minValueA)
>>> > end
>>> >
>>> > function void insertDefault(WorkingMemory workingMemory) {
>>> >   SomeDefault default = new SomeDefault();
>>> >   default.setMinValueA(100);
>>> >   default.setMinValueB(20.0);
>>> >   default.setMaxValueB(20000.0);
>>> >   workingMemory.insert(default);
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > In the latter (non-working) example the first rule activates and then
>>> drools
>>> > returns, it never even attempts to try to fire the second rule.
>>>  However in
>>> > the working example BOTH rules fire as I would expect.  I am guessing
>>> this
>>> > is a simple misunderstanding on my part.  Any assistance in
>>> understanding
>>> > why this nuance doesn't seem to work would be greatly appreciated.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks.
>>> >
>>> > MiKey
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > rules-users mailing list
>>> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>  - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com
>>>  - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
>>>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org
>>>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
>>>
>>>  - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20111230/88182016/attachment.html