s-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
w 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
> *Subj
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
ED]
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
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
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 equali
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.
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.
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 PROTE
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 ex
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 conditio
11 matches
Mail list logo