Re: [rules-users] accumulate function not registered

Did a partial rollback and it resolve the problem. Encountered this issue in effort to get around a spring boot from jar problem. Initially refactored code then upgraded to 6.1.0-CR1. Was at that point the issue arose. On rolling back my refactor (and maintaining the drools 6.1.0-CR1 version) the

[rules-users] accumulate function not registered

After upgrade to 6.1.0.CR1 rule compilation is generating a pluggable accumulate function registration error. Partial stack dump: Caused by: java.lang.RuntimeException: Error while creating KieBase[Message [id=1, level=ERROR, path=com/s/c/manager/rules/campaign/priority/prioritize.drl, line=31,

[rules-users] NPE spring-boot project via a jar

Hi, Running into NPE on application boot up. It appears to be related to a previous topic. I didn't add to it as the last entry appears to veer off topic and didn't want it lost in the wash.

[rules-users] Not and forall operator behaviour

Are the two following statements not equivalent? forall($msg:Message() Message(this==$msg, sent==true, status!=State._INITIALIZED) ) not( Message(sent==false, status==State._INITIALIZED) ) My understanding is that they both ensure that there are no Message objects in WM

Re: [rules-users] Not and forall operator behaviour

Davide, Thank you for the clarification. My error was to interpret the not operator as an existential function (ie: there is no such object that exists) and viewing the object as a unit, rather than, as you pointed out, logically manipulable. In light of that, the logical OR in place of the comma

Re: [rules-users] Cannot issue fireUntilHalt when using persisted session

Open ticket https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-507. I didn't provide any persist and reload code as the system hasn't ever reached the point of saving a session. I tried working around the issue by using fireAllRules and an interval rule. I was able to persist; however, the reload is failed

[rules-users] Cannot issue fireUntilHalt when using persisted session

Due to an issue with reloading persisted sessions that contained a cron timer rule, I upgraded to 6.1.0.Beta3. Now I'm encountering a problem with a threaded fireUntilHalt command (cannot be issued on a persisted session). Exception in thread SimpleAsyncTaskExecutor-1

Re: [rules-users] Rule for only one of the below exists, help please?

Have a look at the collect command. Something like: ArrayList( size == 1 ) from collect( LineItem (materialID == 'a' || == 'b' || == 'c' ) ) -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Rule-for-only-one-of-the-below-exists-help-please-tp4029658p4029660.html Sent from