Guys:
Thank you for letting me interrupt you for a feeble question. I am
learning drools under fire. What I want to do is get a working model up
and running before I try to bring drools into my main project. I am
using Eclipse 3.1 and WSAD 5.1.1. I also want the least amount of pain
from
Russel,
Did you already give it a try? I am a moderate java developer, who turned
architect ;-) and got Drools up and running, connected to mule in less than
4 hours, so you as an advanced developer should be up and running in at
least the same amount of time.
Ronald
2006/3/7, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With 3.0 having tools on the horizon, this may not be the best time to start
learning the zymose one, particularly since there doesn't seem to be a
strong relationship between Zymose and the drools community, that I've seen.
On 3/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed
Hey,
If I have a Java bean with two properties, p1 and p2 and want to have a rule
that processes matching beans, which set of patterns is 'better' as far as
Drools is concerned?
Assuming,
parameter identifier='b1'classMyBean/class/parameter
parameter identifier='b2'classMyBean/class/parameter
Guys:
I am working through a simple example for loading rules. I am running jdk 1.5,
eclipse 3.1.1, and drools2.5 final.
When I run the application it complains about the rules. This is the rule
set
?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?
rule-set name=BusinessRuleSample
Hi Russell,
From looking at the examples I think your fix should be just a matter of
changing your function definition from:
public void printStock
to
public static void printStock
cheers
Steve
On 3/8/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guys:
I am working through a simple
Duh.
Yep, that worked.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Steven Williams
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 4:21 PM
To: user@drools.codehaus.org
Subject: Re: [drools-user] Loading Rules Fail--Help!!!
Hi Russell,
From looking at
Michael was not saying to modify the facts in the consequence. Instead, he
was saying that you it would be _possible_ iterate through the facts after
the rules had fired and modify them.
You could do something like:
memory.fireAllRules(agendaFilter1);
// do something
// modify all facts so
Felipe,
Note that in this situation it seems a waste as your evaluating conditions
for rules you have no intention of firing. Its better to do away with the
agenda filters and have seperate rulebases and seperate working memories and
just assert the same facts into both working memories.
Lionel
hmmm... well perhaps the rule needs to be broken down, so that in one
consequence if modifies fact1, and in a different consequnce it modifies
fact2.
I am not sure how it can work otherwise. I assume there is more in your
consequence then just the modifies?
On 3/8/06, Felipe Piccolini [EMAIL
10 matches
Mail list logo
