On 19/02/2013, pdario <dario.piantan...@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@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users