--- On Wed, 1/28/09, Michal Bali wrote:
> Greg's solution would work just fine. The only issue I
> have with it is that the business requirements usually specify A, B
> and C. They don't specify 'not D'. It is there only to make our rules work,
> which is not ideal. Just my 2c.
Usually I find t
>Not true...If I remove Rule 2 and change the attribute on Rule 1 to no-loop
>true, I still get infinite loop. The rule will process board 5, then board
>4, then back to board 5.
it is because stack is part of both tuples ([stack, board5], [stack,
board4]).
if rule 1 fires it updates both tuples. T
--- On Wed, 1/28/09, Dan Seaver wrote:
> Yes, I understand why Rule 2 doesn't fire when the attribute is set to
> lock-on-active, but why does no-loop work with Rule 2, but not with Rule
> 1?
Just to jump in here, let me say this: I have no idea. :)
Now a suggestion...
This is one reason I li
Not true...If I remove Rule 2 and change the attribute on Rule 1 to no-loop
true, I still get infinite loop. The rule will process board 5, then board
4, then back to board 5.
Michal Bali-2 wrote:
>
>>If no-loop is used with Rule 1 instead of lock-on-active, the rule will go
>>into an infinite
>If no-loop is used with Rule 1 instead of lock-on-active, the rule will go
>into an infinite loop. I don't understand why no-loop doesn't work. Any
>guidance?
no-loop won't work because of Rule2. It modifies Stack and that reactivates
Rule1. No-loop will ignore only modifications to current set of
I am familiar with both of these rule attributes. However, no-loop doesn't
work in all cases, and lock-on-active needs a fairly fine-grained setup of
activation groups or ruleflow groups in many circumstances. Also,
lock-on-active can not block selective activations, it blocks all
activations. So
Like many folks in the user-list, I too am recently evaluating Drools for my
organization. So while I have a basic understanding of the many great features
of Drools, how to integrate it into a high volume, highly reliable enterprise
system is still somewhat of a mystery. One specific thing I
Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:13 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Drools Community Clinic Feb 4th 5PM GMT
Costello, Robert wrote:
> I like this idea.
>
> My need is to have the ability to get things up and running fast. My
> out of box expe
see no-loop or the more powerful lock-on-active.
Mark
Dan Seaver wrote:
Sounds like a very good idea. If you go forward with this, I'd love to see
your method for solving the following type of problem:
I need to update a particular object without causing the rule to re-fire.
Say I have two cla
here is the documentation
http://downloads.jboss.com/drools/docs/4.0.4.17825.GA/html_single/index.html#d0e2978
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Dan Seaver wrote:
>
> Sounds like a very good idea. If you go forward with this, I'd love to see
> your method for solving the following type of probl
using the no-loop attribute in your rule will prevent it from firing again
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Dan Seaver wrote:
>
> Sounds like a very good idea. If you go forward with this, I'd love to see
> your method for solving the following type of problem:
>
> I need to update a particular
Sounds like a very good idea. If you go forward with this, I'd love to see
your method for solving the following type of problem:
I need to update a particular object without causing the rule to re-fire.
Say I have two classes, Stack and Board. I need to choose the Stack to put
each Board, so on
,
Barry
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:44 AM
To: Rules Users List; Rules Dev List
Cc: Burr Sutter
Subject: RE: [rules-users] Drools Community Clinic Feb 4th 5PM GMT
Mark,
This is an awesome idea!
In my company I am often talking about and promoting Drools so what i
Knapp, Barry wrote:
Mark,
This is an awesome idea!
In my company I am often talking about and promoting Drools so what is
most interesting to my audience is how you guys are fine tuning the BRMS
and Execution integrations as well as making it easier to incorporate
the engine into an existing
Costello, Robert wrote:
I like this idea.
My need is to have the ability to get things up and running fast. My
out of box experience with Guvnor was very positive. I'd like to know
how to repeat that using the Execution Server in conjunction with
Guvnor. Perhaps having a pre-built generica
> From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org
> [mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Knapp, Barry
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:44 AM
> To: Rules Users List; Rules Dev List
> Cc: Burr Sutter
> Subject: RE: [rules-users] Drools Community Clinic Feb 4th 5PM GMT
&g
I like this idea.
My need is to have the ability to get things up and running fast. My
out of box experience with Guvnor was very positive. I'd like to know
how to repeat that using the Execution Server in conjunction with
Guvnor. Perhaps having a pre-built generica Java object for the
knowle
Drools Community Clinic Feb 4th 5PM GMT
Mark,
This is an awesome idea!
In my company I am often talking about and promoting Drools so what is
most interesting to my audience is how you guys are fine tuning the BRMS
and Execution integrations as well as making it easier to incorporate
the engine i
Mark,
This is an awesome idea!
In my company I am often talking about and promoting Drools so what is
most interesting to my audience is how you guys are fine tuning the BRMS
and Execution integrations as well as making it easier to incorporate
the engine into an existing bus. The incorporatio
19 matches
Mail list logo
