Edson Tirelli-3 wrote:
>
>For simple constraints like this, using nested accessors is lighter and
> simpler than using from.
>
Phrases like this should go in a drools best practice sections :-) Does
something like that exist?
When you read the docs, you get the impression that "from" is
For simple constraints like this, using nested accessors is lighter and
simpler than using from.
Edson
2010/6/3 Giovanni Motta
> Why not use from? The manual suggest this approach to reason over data that
> is not explicitly asserted in knowledge base. It seems to me that it fits
> best i
Why not use from? The manual suggest this approach to reason over data that
is not explicitly asserted in knowledge base. It seems to me that it fits
best in the requirement of Laird. Please correct me if this is bad practice:
$response: Response()
$question: Question(ID == "XYZ") from $response.qu
Syntactically speaking, I don't think the eval is necessary:
$response : Response( $question : question, question.ID == "XYZ" )
Behind the scenes Drools will still generate an eval to resolve the
nested property constraint, but the rule stays simple to read and maintain.
Edson
2010/6
The "inline eval" constraint is what you want: a boolean expression,
within parentheses.
$response : Response( $question : question, eval(question.getID().equals(
"XYZ" ) ) )
See the Drools Expert manual, section on "Left Hand Side..."
-W
On 1 June 2010 23:54, Laird Nelson wrote:
> I have a
I have a fact that is inserted into my rule base. It is a Response.
A Response has a Question that it is a response to. At the moment,
the Question itself is not separately inserted into the knowledge
base. I would ideally like to keep it this way.
What's the best approach for binding variable
