I was under impression that in stateless session, If we modify the facts, it would not re-evaluate rule(got confused with Sequential mode :-)). But I tried stateless session as per your advice. It did work ! Thanks a lot Greg!
In Sequential Mode, Now It does not re-evaluate any rule if any facts modified. I'm thinking of this new feature. If any facts modified, then re-evaluate only subsequent rules( i.e all rules with less salience than that of current rule's) and provide some flag to enable/disable this feature. this feature would be very useful If I we want to control execution of the rules with less salience by rules with higher salience in Sequential Mode. Actually I want to control rules execution this way. Is there any hack to achieve this now? Thanks again! Greg Barton wrote: > > > --- On Fri, 11/7/08, techy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Can you please advise which of two is best approach? >> >> 1. Having multiple rulebase and assign to child thread. >> each child thread would a single stateful session and fire rule for >> given facts. >> 2. having one rulebase and create multiple stateful session >> and assign to each child thread. > > That would depend on the structure of the rules, and specifically on the > number of object join rules in your rule base. The only way to know, > truthfully, is to try both ways with typical data sets. > >> 3. I would give batch of facts to child threads. once they >> complete the firing rules. now I want to release these facts from >> memory before I process next batch of facts using same or new child >> threads. Do I need to do any explicit clean up in either rulebase or >> stateful session ? or would JVM GC take care of the clean up as long >> as I don't maintain any ref to those facts in my application? > > You must retract them from the working memory for the objects to be > GC'ed. Otherwise the stateful session would maintain a reference to them. > You could also just destroy the stateful session itself. That might > actually be quicker. (Assuming that you're starting the stateful session > from starting conditions during each batch run.) Although at that point > why have a stateful session? :) It sounds to me like a stateless session > might be more what you need, really. Have you tried it? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/inserting-collection-of-facts-tp20374245p20401807.html Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
