Michael Neale <michael.neale <at> gmail.com> writes: > > There hasn't really been much of a call for it in the past actually. > Normally flow control has a better solution then forcing things to happen in > a certain order. > > I think the ideal solution to that is backwards chaining, which is something > we want to do. So a rule can request that the calculation be done, and it is > done just once (and only when/if it is needed to complete a rules LHS). This > is something we are looking at doing very soon as it has lots of other uses.
So is Backward chaining on agenda for Drools 3 release ??? There are a few instances when flow control is mandatory, for example in cases where a second rule has dependency on the first . Currently I am handling such conditions outside the engine. Is it possible to incorporate it into the rule files. This would be one great step forward !
