[rules-users] Non short circuit ANDing

[Grant Rettke]

Another way perhaps to say is that RETE is optimized to focus on what
it knows to be true rather than what it doesn't know to be true. (Not
sure how that sounds...)

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Jeremy Ary <jeremy.ary at gmail.com> wrote:
> This request turns up a lot. If you dig deeper into the Rete algorithm and
> examine how it works, you'll find that the node relations and redundancy
> elimination greatly abstracts away from what we think of as the LHS of a
> rule. In the node network, it's no longer a set of conditions grouped
> together for each rule that are checked for true/false collectively. I can't
> think of a way to accomplish this without severely impacting performance as
> I think you'd essentially end up evaluating all of your rules with a
> secondary algorithm. However, I only claim to know that I know very little,
> so grain of salt.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Cotton, Ben <Ben.Cotton at morganstanley.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> > you'll have to evaluate all relevant conditions individually and keep
>> > track of the positives
>>
>>
>>
>> Would it be reasonable to suggest that the Drools team provide the user
>> community with some tool, API, or other framework construct that might
>> assist us when we are faced with this exact task?
>>
>>
>>
>> I mean, yes, what you suggest here works (and it works perfectly).  But,
>> for such an important and common user concern, we currently face a lot of
>> "Drools .DRL keystroke labor" to get us completely where we need to be wrt
>> to coding this tactic completely.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does your Intellifest white paper (today is the day?  HOORAY!)  comment at
>> all on strategies to achieve this pattern in .DRL code?  It would be way
>> cool if the framework itself liberated us with a “just add water and out
>> comes the .DRL code you want” capability.  Such a capability would deliver
>> to users a full answer wrt to our “when do rules fail to fire?” accounting
>> needs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Admittedly, I don’t know of a best way to proceed wrt to potentially
>> providing that capability.  But I do know it would be nice.
>>
>>
>>
>> As always, thank you very much for this forum’s superb support.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
>> [mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:07 PM
>> To: Rules Users List
>> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Non short circuit ANDing
>>
>>
>>
>> [Groundhog Day]
>>
>>
>>
>> If you need to know all the reasons why a rule doesn't fire you'll have to
>> evaluate all relevant conditions individually and keep track of the
>> positives. (See a very recent thread on this list.)
>>
>>
>>
>> -W
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29/01/2013, mp <meitreyi.panchmia at morganstanley.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I need to record the results of each of the conditions as a side
>>
>> > effect in a list. But in case condition1 is false, condition2 would
>>
>> > not be evaluated.
>>
>> > This would prevent me from knowing whether or not condition2 was
>>
>> > true/false.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 5.8.3.3.12. Operator precedence at
>>
>> > http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.2.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/ht
>>
>> > ml/ch05.html#d0e3962 lists & as an operator. But it somehow doesn't
>>
>> > work.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > View this message in context:
>>
>> > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Non-short-circuit-ANDing-tp4021928p4
>>
>> > 021931.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
>>
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> rules-users mailing list
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Grant Rettke | ACM, AMA, COG, IEEE
grettke at acm.org | http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/
Wisdom begins in wonder.
((λ (x) (x x)) (λ (x) (x x)))