[rules-users] Logical insert and cyclic rules dependences

[Wolfgang Laun]

On 03/07/2012, zephyr <ls262570 at students.mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
> In this case yes, but generally those dependences can be much more
> complicated and this example is the simplest ilustration of the problem.
>
> It can also be
>
> a-> b ->c ->d ->b


In this scenario, Fact b would not be inserted again, because thruth maintenance
always uses equality, irrespective of the runtime configuration
identity/equality.

Make sure to override equals and hashCode correctly, go by the book,

-W


>
> (that makes b,c,d equivalent, but is little less trivial to detect)
>
> or more complicated
> a->b
> b->c
> c and d -> b
> d nad a are facts, then a is removed
> c and b are not eqivalent, but still support each other while there is fact
> d
> etc.
>
> I just want logical facts that are not connected by any rule path with
> inserted facts and only stay because of logical fact cycles to disapear.
>
> Im writing a system that takes user generated dependences as input and its
> main goal is to deal with different consequences, i thought drools might be
> a right tool to base this system on, this didnt work so i wonder is it a
> common problem and is there an easy way to deal with it (or some way to
> change drools to work like this).
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Logical-insert-and-cyclic-rules-dependences-tp4018381p4018397.html
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>