On 31 October 2011 17:06, arrehman <arrehma...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I have /update()/ on consequence/action part of rules, which I can't void.
It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself. If you can't remove update() then this means that you do need the changes to facts being made known to the rules engine so that it can fire rules (again), due to changes made. This is the only purpose of an update() call; changes to the Java object are made by setter calls, as always. -W > I > guess there is no way and rule engine is doing the right thing then. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rule-fires-several-times-tp3466250p3468183.html > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users