[rules-users] Evaluate rules for multiple facts of the same type within a StateuflSession

[Cotton, Ben]

> We've been through this kind of discussion time and again...



Indeed you have.  I remember when this forum helped me with my exact same misunderstanding when I was struggling with my very first HelloWorld.DRL.



Thank you to this DROOLs forum (and especially Wolfgang) for being so gentle and generous when helping the DROOLs newbie - each of us - time and again (and again) ... in this specific regard.



Despite it being monotonous at each encounter, please continue to gift us this help - at this exact stage in our development -- for as long as you possibly can.  For you it must be like the equivalent of "changing diapers" for each and every newbie "born" into the DROOLs community.  Beyond monotonous, it must be outright unpleasant.  But this help --at this stage -- is exactly what it takes for the DROOLs community to "go forth and multiply".



One day, those of us that you helped now will help others later... in the exact same way ... time and again (and again!).



Of course you must know this ... it is likely exactly why you do it ... a sort of DROOLs paternal instinct.  :)



But even if you do know this, it is important that you know it is appreciated.



Thank You.  Emphatically, thank you.



-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:01 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Evaluate rules for multiple facts of the same type within a StateuflSession



We've been through this kind of discussion time and again...



Check whether procedural programming isn't better suited for your task whenever you shy away from the requirements and benefits of a rule based solution.



And see the section on "Fact Classification" in my whitepaper:

https://engage.redhat.com/forms/rule-design-patterns



-W





On 13/02/2013, pdario <dario.piantanida at gmail.com<mailto:dario.piantanida at gmail.com>> wrote:

> I'm sorry, it's not clear.

>

> Do you mean I have to add a condition in each rule to check whether

> other discount have been already applied?

> Even so, I can I control the preferred order of the discounts without

> salience? Do I have to put negated conditions of each rule??

>

> It looks cumbersome...

>

>

>

> --

> View this message in context:

> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Evaluate-rules-for-multiple-facts-of

> -the-same-type-within-a-StateuflSession-tp4022157p4022270.html

> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

> _______________________________________________

> rules-users mailing list

> rules-users at lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>

> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

>

_______________________________________________

rules-users mailing list

rules-users at lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>

https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users


________________________________

NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20130214/f4ab683d/attachment-0001.html