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

[Wolfgang Laun]

On 19/02/2013, pdario <dario.piantanida at gmail.com> wrote:
> laune wrote
>>> I have a first level discount if you pay online and a second level
>>> discount
>>> if you pay online AND buy a special product.
>>> So, the second is true only if the first is.
>>
>> Not *quite* correct: you have 1st level discount if you pay online and
>> DO NOT buy a special product.
>
> Well, this is strictly true, but it seems to me it is easier to have a
> fallback rules instead of specifying in the first rule all the negated
> conditions for more specific rules...
> Otherwise, I'll have to add to the first rule "AND boughtProduct does not
> contain spcial product A, B, C, D...."

Will we go through all of logic and set theory...?

I'm confident that there's a clean and manageable way of preparing
this data to work in combination with a small and constant set of
rules.  I refrain from elaborating this in all details without knowing
all of the requirements.

-W

> and have to maintain this as we
> change the special products every month.
>
> What's the best practice for this?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Evaluate-rules-for-multiple-facts-of-the-same-type-within-a-StateuflSession-tp4022157p4022437.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
>