Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Hans,
If you change "not NegativeResult()" to "not (exits
NegativeResult())" this should result in the expected behaviour.
Cheers,
Ingomar
Am 31.07.2008 um 17:19 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How is "not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two
different rules whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the
following:
rule "Rule One"
when
not NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));
end
rule "Rule Two"
when
NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Denied"));
end
Assume that the above two rules are the only way an ApplicantStatus
fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect, after all
rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one
ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with
"Denied" as its reason, in the working memory.
I would expect that, before any NegativeResult is inserted, that
rule one could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with an
"Approved" reason. Then, after a NegativeResult is inserted, that
rule two could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with a
"Denied" reason. At this point I would expect that the original
ApplicantStatus fact, with an "Approved" reason, would be retracted,
since the conditions under which it was inserted are no longer true.
This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding
ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end
of the rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to
inserting a fact via insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation,
or simply the way it is designed to work?
Thanks,
-Hans___
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
Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Ingomar,
I tried this, and indeed that worked. I was surprised, as I thought "not" was
meant more to mean that a fact inside its parentheses did not exist, rather
than a logical negation, which is the way you used it in your example. However,
if I do what you said, it does work exactly how I expected "not" alone to work.
Thanks!
-Hans
-- Original message --
From: Ingomar Otter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hans,
> If you change "not NegativeResult()" to "not (exits
> NegativeResult())" this should result in the expected behaviour.
>
> Cheers,
> Ingomar
>
> Am 31.07.2008 um 17:19 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > How is "not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two
> > different rules whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the
> > following:
> > rule "Rule One"
> > when
> > not NegativeResult()
> > then
> > insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));
> > end
> > rule "Rule Two"
> > when
> > NegativeResult()
> > then
> > insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Denied"));
> > end
> > Assume that the above two rules are the only way an ApplicantStatus
> > fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect, after all
> > rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one
> > ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with
> > "Denied" as its reason, in the working memory.
> > I would expect that, before any NegativeResult is inserted, that
> > rule one could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with an
> > "Approved" reason. Then, after a NegativeResult is inserted, that
> > rule two could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with a
> > "Denied" reason. At this point I would expect that the original
> > ApplicantStatus fact, with an "Approved" reason, would be retracted,
> > since the conditions under which it was inserted are no longer true.
> > This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding
> > ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end
> > of the rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to
> > inserting a fact via insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation,
> > or simply the way it is designed to work?
> > Thanks,
> > -Hans___
> > 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 ___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Hans,
Your reasoning is correct. There should not be 2 instances of
ApplicantStatus in the working memory.
Can you provide a test case showing the problem? we have test cases here
using "not" and logical assertions, and it works properly.
Thanks,
Edson
2008/7/31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How is "
> not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two different
> rules whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the following:*
>
> rule
> * "Rule One"
>
> *when*
>
> not NegativeResult()
>
> *then*
>
> *insertLogical*(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));*
>
> end
> **
>
> rule
> * "Rule Two"
>
> *when*
>
> NegativeResult()
>
> *then*
>
> *insertLogical*(new ApplicantStatus("Denied"));*
>
> end
> *
>
> Assume that the above two rules are the only way an
> ApplicantStatus fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect,
> after all rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one
> ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with "Denied"as
> its reason, in the working memory.
>
> I would expect that, before any
> NegativeResult is inserted, that rule one could run, and insert an
> ApplicantStatus fact with an "Approved" reason. Then, after a
> NegativeResult is inserted, that rule two could run, and insert an
> ApplicantStatus fact with a "Denied" reason. At this point I would expect
> that the original ApplicantStatus fact, with an "Approved" reason, would
> be retracted, since the conditions under which it was inserted are no longer
> true.
>
> This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding
> ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end of
> the rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to inserting a fact
> via insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation, or simply the way it
> is designed to work?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Hans
>
> ___
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Hmm, in this case, it is definitively a bug. "not" IS the existential
qualifier, i.e., the constrary of exists. So it should be simply redundant
to write "not exists". Need to investigate that.
[]s
Edson
2008/7/31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ingomar,
>
> I tried this, and indeed that worked. I was surprised, as I thought "not"
> was meant more to mean that a fact inside its parentheses did not exist,
> rather than a logical negation, which is the way you used it in your
> example. However, if I do what you said, it does work exactly how I expected
> "not" alone to work.
>
> Thanks!
> -Hans
>
>
> -- Original message --
> From: Ingomar Otter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Hans,
> > If you change "not NegativeResult()" to "not (exits
> > NegativeResult())" this should result in the expected behaviour.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ingomar
> >
> > Am 31.07.2008 um 17:19 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >
> > > How is "not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two
> > > different rules whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the
> > > following:
> > > rule "Rule One"
> > > when
> > > not NegativeResult()
> > > then
> > > insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));
> > > end
> > > rule "Rule Two"
> > > when
> > > NegativeResult()
> > > then
> > > insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Denied")); > > end
> > > Assume that the above two rules are the only way an ApplicantStatus
> > > fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect, after all
> > > rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one
> > > ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with
> > > "Denied" as its reason, in the working memory.
> > > I would expect that, before any NegativeResult is inserted, that
> > > rule one could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with an
> > > "Approved" reason. Then, after a NegativeResult is inserted, that
> > > rule two could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with a
> > > "Denied" reason. At this point I would expect that the original
> > > ApplicantStatus fact, with an "Approved" reason, would be retracted,
> > > since the conditions under which it was inserted are no longer true.
> > > This is not what I am observin! g, howe ver. I am finding
> > > ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end
> > > of the rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to
> > > inserting a fact via insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation,
> > > or simply the way it is designed to work?
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Hans___
> > > 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
>
>
> ___
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Hans,
I checked the docs and as Edson says it should work without the
exists( ).
Strange that never worked for me.
Maybe we all learn something if you can carve out a test-case.
Strange.
--I
Am 31.07.2008 um 19:29 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ingomar,
I tried this, and indeed that worked. I was surprised, as I thought
"not" was meant more to mean that a fact inside its parentheses did
not exist, rather than a logical negation, which is the way you used
it in your example. However, if I do what you said, it does work
exactly how I expected "not" alone to work.
Thanks!
-Hans
-- Original message --
From: Ingomar Otter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hans,
If you change "not NegativeResult()" to "not (exits
NegativeResult())" this should result in the expected behaviour.
Cheers,
Ingomar
Am 31.07.2008 um 17:19 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How is "not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two
different rules whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the
following:
rule "Rule One"
when
not NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));
end
rule "Rule Two"
when
NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Denied"));
end
Assume that the above two rules are the only way an ApplicantStatus
fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect, after all
rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one
ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with
"Denied" as its reason, in the working memory.
I would expect that, before any NegativeResult is inserted, that
rule one could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with an
"Approved" reason. Then, after a NegativeResult is inserted, that
rule two could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with a
"Denied" reason. At this point I would expect that the original
ApplicantStatus fact, with an "Approved" reason, would be retracted,
since the conditions under which it was inserted are no longer true.
This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding
ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end
of the rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to
inserting a fact via insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation,
or simply the way it is designed to work?
Thanks,
-Hans___
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
___
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
Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Edson,
I finally succeeded in coming up with a simple test case that shows the
problem. I have attached the necessary files, which include a test case, three
fact objects, and the drl.
One key to this test are the fact that the Applicant fact object has an
"equals" method that tests for equality of its attributes, rather than
identity. A second key is that the applicant object is updated after it is
inserted.
It appears that what is happening is that an activation is created for the rule
that uses "not" when the applicant is inserted. Then, when the applicant is
updated, a second activation is created for that rule. It should be cancelling
the previous activation, but doesn't find it because the Applicant instance no
longer "equals" the fact object that caused the activation.
Thanks!
-Hans
-- Original message --
From: "Edson Tirelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hans,
Your reasoning is correct. There should not be 2 instances of
ApplicantStatus in the working memory.
Can you provide a test case showing the problem? we have test cases here
using "not" and logical assertions, and it works properly.
Thanks,
Edson
2008/7/31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How is "
not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two different rules
whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the following:
rule
"Rule One"
when
not NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));
end
rule
"Rule Two"
when
NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Denied"));
end
Assume that the above two rules are the only way an
ApplicantStatus fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect, after
all rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one
ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with "Denied" as its
reason, in the working memory.
I would expect that, before any
NegativeResult is inserted, that rule one could run, and insert an
ApplicantStatus fact with an "Approved" reason. Then, after a NegativeResult is
inserted, that rule two could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with a
"Denied" reason. At this point I would expect that the original ApplicantStatus
fact, with an "Approved" reason, would be retracted, since the conditions under
which it was inserted are no lon! ger true.
This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding
ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end of the
rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to inserting a fact via
insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation, or simply the way it is
designed to work?
Thanks,
-Hans
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com--- Begin Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--- End Message ---
Applicant.java
Description: Binary data
ApplicantStatus.java
Description: Binary data
NegativeResult.java
Description: Binary data
notTest.drl
Description: Binary data
--- End Message ---
NotTest.java
Description: Binary data
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
RE: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
How is your rule base configured, with identity or equality assert
behavior?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:59 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Edson,
I finally succeeded in coming up with a simple test case that shows the
problem. I have attached the necessary files, which include a test case,
three fact objects, and the drl.
One key to this test are the fact that the Applicant fact object has an
"equals" method that tests for equality of its attributes, rather than
identity. A second key is that the applicant object is updated after it
is inserted.
It appears that what is happening is that an activation is created for
the rule that uses "not" when the applicant is inserted. Then, when the
applicant is updated, a second activation is created for that rule. It
should be cancelling the previous activation, but doesn't find it
because the Applicant instance no longer "equals" the fact object that
caused the activation.
Thanks!
-Hans
-- Original message --
From: "Edson Tirelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hans,
Your reasoning is correct. There should not be 2 instances of
ApplicantStatus in the working memory.
Can you provide a test case showing the problem? we have test
cases here using "not" and logical assertions, and it works properly.
Thanks,
Edson
2008/7/31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How is "
not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have
two different rules whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the
following:
rule
"Rule One"
when
not NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));
end
rule
"Rule Two"
when
NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Denied"));
end
Assume that the above two rules are the only way an
ApplicantStatus fact can be inserted into working
memory. I would expect, after all rules are run, that it would be
impossible for there to be one ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its
reason, and another with "Denied" as its reason, in the working memory.
I would expect that, before any
NegativeResult is inserted, that rule one could run, and
insert an ApplicantStatus fact with an "Approved" reason. Then, after a
NegativeResult is inserted, that rule two could run, and insert an
ApplicantStatus fact with a "Denied" reason. At this point I would
expect that the original ApplicantStatus fact, with an "Approved"
reason, would be retracted, since the conditions under which it was
inserted are no lon! ger true.
This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding
ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working
memory at the end of the rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with
regard to inserting a fact via insertLogical()? Or is this a known
limitation, or simply the way it is designed to work?
Thanks,
-Hans
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
<http://www.jboss.com/>
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
RE: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
The default - identity.
-- Original message --
From: "Fenderbosch, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How is your rule base configured, with identity or equality assert behavior?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:59 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Edson,
I finally succeeded in coming up with a simple test case that shows the
problem. I have attached the necessary files, which include a test case, three
fact objects, and the drl.
One key to this test are the fact that the Applicant fact object has an
"equals" method that tests for equality of its attributes, rather than
identity. A second key is that the applicant object is updated after it is
inserted.
It appears that what is happening is that an activation is created for the rule
that uses "not" when the applicant is inserted. Then, when the applicant is
updated, a second activation is created for that rule. It should be cancelling
the previous activation, but doesn't find it because the Applicant instance no
longer "equals" the fact object that caused the activation.
Thanks!
-Hans
-- Original message --
From: "Edson Tirelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hans,
Your reasoning is correct. There should not be 2 instances of
ApplicantStatus in the working memory.
Can you provide a test case showing the problem? we have test cases here
using "not" and logical assertions, and it works properly.
Thanks,
Edson
2008/7/31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How is "
not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two different rules
whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the following:
rule
"Rule One"
when
not NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));
end
rule
"Rule Two"
when
NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Denied"));
end
Assume that the above two rules are the only way an
ApplicantStatus fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect, after
all rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one
ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with "Denied" as its
reason, in the working memory.
I would expect that, before any
NegativeResult is inserted, that rule one could run, and insert an
ApplicantStatus fact with an "Approved" reason. Then, after a NegativeResult is
inserted, that rule two could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with a
"Denied" reason. At this point I would expect that the original ApplicantStatus
fact, with an "Approved" reason, would be retracted, since the conditions under
which it was inserted are no lon! ger true.
This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding
ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end of the
rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to inserting a fact via
insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation, or simply the way it is
designed to work?
Thanks,
-Hans
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com--- Begin Message ---
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--- End Message ---
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Oh, I see.
Unfortunately in this case, there is nothing we can do about it, because
the rules are behaving exactly as they were supposed to behave:
NegativeResult(applicant == $applicant)
As you can see, they are telling the application to use the equals
comparison in the constraint:
applicant == $applicant
A fact should not change it's identity once it is asserted, so, either
you use a constant "equals()/hashcode()" implementation, or you use
constraints on an immutable ID:
NegativeResult(applicantId == $applicant.id)
You can also fallback to java "identity" check by using eval, but it is
ugly... :)
NegativeResult( eval( applicant == $applicant) )
[]s
Edson
2008/8/4 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Edson,
>
> I finally succeeded in coming up with a simple test case that shows the
> problem. I have attached the necessary files, which include a test case,
> three fact objects, and the drl.
>
> One key to this test are the fact that the Applicant fact object has an
> "equals" method that tests for equality of its attributes, rather than
> identity. A second key is that the applicant object is updated after it is
> inserted.
>
> It appears that what is happening is that an activation is created for the
> rule that uses "not" when the applicant is inserted. Then, when the
> applicant is updated, a second activation is created for that rule. It
> should be cancelling the previous activation, but doesn't find it because
> the Applicant instance no longer "equals" the fact object that caused the
> activation.
>
> Thanks!
> -Hans
>
> -- Original message --
> From: "Edson Tirelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Hans,
>
>Your reasoning is correct. There should not be 2 instances of
> ApplicantStatus in the working memory.
>
>Can you provide a test case showing the problem? we have test cases here
> using "not" and logical assertions, and it works properly.
>
>Thanks,
>Edson
>
> 2008/7/31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> How is "
>> not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two different
>> rules whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the following:*
>>
>> rule
>> *"Rule One"
>>
>> *when*
>>
>> not NegativeResult()
>>
>> *then*
>>
>> *insertLogical*(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));*
>>
>> end
>> **
>>
>> rule
>> *"Rule Two"
>>
>> *when*
>>
>> NegativeResult()
>>
>> *then*
>>
>> *insertLogical*(new ApplicantStatus("Denied"));*
>>
>> end
>> *
>>
>> Assume that the above two rules are the only way an
>> ApplicantStatus fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect,
>> after all rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one
>> ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with "Denied"as
>> its reason, in the working memory.
>>
>> I would expect that, before any
>> NegativeResult is inserted, that rule one could run, and insert an
>> ApplicantStatus fact with an "Approved" reason. Then, after a
>> NegativeResult is inserted, that rule two could run, and insert an
>> ApplicantStatus fact with a "Denied" reason. At this point I would expect
>> that the original ApplicantStatus fact, with an "Approved" reason, would
>> be retracted, since the conditions under which it was inserted are no lon!
>> ger true.
>>
>> This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding
>> ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end of
>> the rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to inserting a fact
>> via insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation, or simply the way it
>> is designed to work?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Hans
>>
>> _______________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> JBoss Drools Core Development
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
>
>
>
> -- Mensagem encaminhada --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Rules Users List
> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:49:37 +
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
>
>
> -- Mensagem encaminhada --
> From: "Edson Tirelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Rules Users List"
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:41:39 +
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
> ___
> 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
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Eric,
Unfortunately, in his case does not matter if he is using identity or
equality behavior, because the problem is in the constraint, that is telling
the engine to use equals():
applicant == $applicant
[]s
Edson
2008/8/4 Fenderbosch, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How is your rule base configured, with identity or equality assert
> behavior?
>
> --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 04, 2008 9:59 AM
> *To:* Rules Users List
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
>
> Edson,
>
> I finally succeeded in coming up with a simple test case that shows the
> problem. I have attached the necessary files, which include a test case,
> three fact objects, and the drl.
>
> One key to this test are the fact that the Applicant fact object has an
> "equals" method that tests for equality of its attributes, rather than
> identity. A second key is that the applicant object is updated after it is
> inserted.
>
> It appears that what is happening is that an activation is created for the
> rule that uses "not" when the applicant is inserted. Then, when the
> applicant is updated, a second activation is created for that rule. It
> should be cancelling the previous activation, but doesn't find it because
> the Applicant instance no longer "equals" the fact object that caused the
> activation.
>
> Thanks!
> -Hans
>
> -- Original message --
> From: "Edson Tirelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Hans,
>
>Your reasoning is correct. There should not be 2 instances of
> ApplicantStatus in the working memory.
>
>Can you provide a test case showing the problem? we have test cases here
> using "not" and logical assertions, and it works properly.
>
>Thanks,
>Edson
>
> 2008/7/31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> How is "
>> not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two different
>> rules whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the following:*
>>
>> rule
>> *"Rule One"
>>
>> *when*
>>
>> not NegativeResult()
>>
>> *then*
>>
>> *insertLogical*(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));*
>>
>> end
>> **
>>
>> rule
>> *"Rule Two"
>>
>> *when*
>>
>> NegativeResult()
>>
>> *then*
>>
>> *insertLogical*(new ApplicantStatus("Denied"));*
>>
>> end
>> *
>>
>> Assume that the above two rules are the only way an
>> ApplicantStatus fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect,
>> after all rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one
>> ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with "Denied"as
>> its reason, in the working memory.
>>
>> I would expect that, before any
>> NegativeResult is inserted, that rule one could run, and insert an
>> ApplicantStatus fact with an "Approved" reason. Then, after a
>> NegativeResult is inserted, that rule two could run, and insert an
>> ApplicantStatus fact with a "Denied" reason. At this point I would expect
>> that the original ApplicantStatus fact, with an "Approved" reason, would
>> be retracted, since the conditions under which it was inserted are no lon!
>> ger true.
>>
>> This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding
>> ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end of
>> the rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to inserting a fact
>> via insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation, or simply the way it
>> is designed to work?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Hans
>>
>> ___
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> JBoss Drools Core Development
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
>
>
> ___
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Okay, I understand now. I had incorrectly assumed that the "applicant ==
$applicant" constraint was using identity. Not a big deal to work around. It
seems like you would most often want to use identity in constraints, but I
guess you have to provide for those cases when you need to use equality. Maybe
there should be two different operators. Just my two ¢.
Anyway, thanks.
-Hans
-- Original message --
From: "Edson Tirelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Oh, I see.
Unfortunately in this case, there is nothing we can do about it, because the
rules are behaving exactly as they were supposed to behave:
NegativeResult(applicant == $applicant)
As you can see, they are telling the application to use the equals
comparison in the constraint:
applicant == $applicant
A fact should not change it's identity once it is asserted, so, either you
use a constant "equals()/hashcode()" implementation, or you use constraints on
an immutable ID:
NegativeResult(applicantId == $applicant.id)
You can also fallback to java "identity" check by using eval, but it is
ugly... :)
NegativeResult( eval( applicant == $applicant) )
[]s
Edson
2008/8/4 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Edson,
I finally succeeded in coming up with a simple test case that shows the
problem. I have attached the necessary files, which include a test case, three
fact objects, and the drl.
One key to this test are the fact that the Applicant fact object has an
"equals" method that tests for equality of its attributes, rather than
identity. A second key is that the applicant object is updated after it is
inserted.
It appears that what is happening is that an activation is created for the rule
that uses "not" when the applicant is inserted. Then, when the applicant is
updated, a second activation is created for that rule. It should be cancelling
the previous activation, but doesn't find it because the Applicant instance no
longer "equals" the fact object that caused the activation.
Thanks!
-Hans
-- Original message --
From: "Edson Tirelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hans,
Your reasoning is correct. There should not be 2 instances of
ApplicantStatus in the working memory.
Can you provide a test case showing the problem? we have test cases here
using "not" and logical assertions, and it works properly.
Thanks,
Edson
2008/7/31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
How is "
not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two different rules
whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the following:
rule
"Rule One"
when
not NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));
end
rule
"Rule Two"
when
NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Denied"));
end
Assume that the above two rules are the only way an
ApplicantStatus fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect, after
all rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one
ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with "Denied" as its
reason, in the working memory.
I would expect that, before any
NegativeResult is inserted, that rule one could run, and insert an
ApplicantStatus fact with an "Approved" reason. Then, after a NegativeResult is
inserted, that rule two could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with a
"Denied" reason. At this point I would expect that the original ApplicantStatus
fact, with an "Approved" reason, would be retracted, since the conditions under
which it was inserted are no lon! ger true.
This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding
ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end of the
rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to inserting a fact via
insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation, or simply the way it is
designed to work?
Thanks,
-Hans
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
-- Mensagem encaminhada --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rules Users List
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:49:37 +
Subject: Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
-- Mensagem encaminhada --
From: "Edson Tirelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rules Users List"
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:41:39 +
Subject: Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/r
