Davide Sottara wrote
FYI, one of the next releases will include a new feature, called
defeasibility,
which is specifically designed for situations where higher ranking rules
are allowed to override the consequence of other rules.
We have an initial prototype working, but it will take a few
laune wrote
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.
I'll try to summarize them as properly as I can...
A lot to think about, it will take a little time to dissect this.
Thank you!
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Evaluate-rules-for-multiple-facts-of-the-same-type-within-a-StateuflSession-tp4022157p4022476.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list
Hello, the tinting example from the whitepaper assumes each Tint fits
exactly one Param, right?
This is not my case, as a Cart can match different discounts and we want to
assign the highest possible.
Is the pattern still suitable?
Another thing I see is Param is evaluating plain attributes from
laune wrote
There is always just one fit; it just seems that there are multiple
fits - when you define your individual cases sloppily.
Well, this is an assumption to get a completely disjointed classification,
but this is not my case.
I have a first level discount if you pay online and a
Well, so how can I make this rule fire for each fact?
My scenario is:
- different rules in the same activation-group to assign discount to the
shopping cart
- different activation-group to manage different discount policies
- each rule has different salience to be sure only the most relevant one
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...
--
@FrankVhh
It looks ok to have a no other reductions are applied as a blocker, I find
cumbersome to repeat all the conditions of other rules negated.
Anyway, I'll try to summarize my situation:
rule 20% discount
salience 0
effective 1st Feb - 28th Feb
activaction-group online discounts
when
@ part was just for your remark on cumbersomeness...
I'm now reading the linked whitepaper.
It's not easy for me to see how your example is easier than mine solution.
I acknowledge salience redistribution would be a problem, that's why I kept
them separated and kept salience values meaningful
I'm trying to understand this Param pattern, but I miss the Java calling
for it: will I need to put the effective values in the Java code instead of
the rule file?
Can you elaborate a little about this?
Take the Example 3 of your whitepaper: where are literals 0, 10 and red
from the Example 2?
Can anybody help?
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Evaluate-rules-for-multiple-facts-of-the-same-type-within-a-StateuflSession-tp4022157p4022236.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Here I am, I found what's wrong, but I don't understand if this is the
expected behavior.
In my test rule I added
activation-group TEST
to isolate it form other rules I had in the file; I also deleted all the
other rules for testing, not thinking the activation-group attribute would
cause any
Damn, I can't!
Simple rule
rule TEST
dialect mvel
when
s : String()
then
System.out.println(s);
end
Java Test
StatefulKnowledgeSession s = ...
s.insert(ONE);
s.insert(TWO);
s.fireAllRules();
s.dispose();
Output
TWO
What the...???
Using v5.4.0.Final
--
View this message in context:
Can you suggest a way to diagnose what's going wrong?
I added DebugAgendaEventListener and DebugWorkingMemoryEventListener, but
the output is too confusing for me
--
View this message in context:
I'll try to make it; in the meanwhile, do you find this meaningful?
==[ActivationCreatedEvent: getActivation()=[Activation rule=TEST, act#=0,
salience=0, tuple=[fact 0:1:30100654:78406:1:DEFAULT:ONE]
], getKnowledgeRuntime()=org.drools.impl.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl@4703c]
Yes, I understood it stays still, that should not be a problem for me.
Thank you
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/How-to-pass-a-global-reference-date-to-rules-tp4022057p4022112.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hello, I need to have my rules reason with a reference date different than
today (so I can't use the rule attributes date-effective, date-expires).
I declared a global java.utile.Date, I set it in Java, but I cannot reason
on it...
I don't want to put in each rule a generic Date fact.
What do
I see, I'll have a look at the classes you mention.
But what if I need to calculate a time difference from today to another date
(say order expire date)?
Would a new Date() in the rules give me the pseudo time?
Thank you!
--
View this message in context:
Moreover, it seems getSessionClock is for Statefull sessions only, but I'm
working with Stateless ones.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/How-to-pass-a-global-reference-date-to-rules-tp4022057p4022067.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive
I'm following your suggestions, I think I can go with them.
Thank you
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/How-to-pass-a-global-reference-date-to-rules-tp4022057p4022082.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hello,
I need some help to understand how to enforce dependency rules with Drools.
Suppose you have two objects - A and B - and two business rules that say:
if A is selected, unselect B and if B is selected, unselect A.
How can I be sure that Drools unselects B when user selects A and
21 matches
Mail list logo
