On 30 March 2011 12:47, marc <[email protected]> wrote: > I was using only one fireAllRules() after insert(message) and not > fireUntilHalt(). But is should be enough : as the rule change & update the > fact, the rule is applied again (10 seconds later, and not 1second).
If there are no timers, fireAllRules() terminates as soon as all pending activations have been fired. Changing a fact later on will create activations, but not fire rules. > > With fireUntilHalt() the rule work fine (and without timer)... but it burns > the CPU (the java process reach 50% on a bi-proc) while a simple call to > fireAllRues() after the timer update use nothing... This doesn't make sense > to me because the drools engine is only notified of a fact modification only > 1 time per second (the timer update), so it should only fire all rules a > this moment and that all (just like a fireAllRules() after the > update(SimpleClock) does), so why does it takes so much CPU ? I can post the > code but I should open a other thread because it not the same "problem" ? Another known problem, I think. I don't see anything like that while using a (my) build from a developer baaseline about 6 weeks ago. > > About adding log to trace the values of endDate, the traces show correct > values. But it doesn't trace the value viewed by the drools engine itself > wich could be different (just as if I don't do an update() after a > modification) Sorry, but your way of expressing yourself beats me again. -W > > Marc > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/The-update-function-inside-a-rule-tp2747484p2753098.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 > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
