On 30/11/2012, Greg Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > Not a problem. Actually I prefer to perform flow control using working > memory objects like that instead of using the keywords, but I'm old school. > :) > > GreG
Agenda groups provide a mechanism that's difficult to emulate using "guard objects", i.e., the stack-ish behaviour, with automatic return to the previously active group once all activations of the current group are exhausted. >> From: "Cotton, Ben" <[email protected]> >> >> I now want to (competently!) use DROOLs language tactics that give me ever >> finer grained control over managing rule set firing behavior on Fact >> mutation events. Specifically, I want to be able to implement some form >> of ‘Guarded entry/block’ controls. There may be some good reason for "fine grained control" every now and then, but basically this contravenes the fundamental idea of rules being perfectly capable of determining the right order - if written correctly, that is, by judiciously selecting fact properties by constraints. >> rule "RULE_ALL_RULES_HAVE_FIRED_ONCE_ORDINALLY" >> when >> fact:InsertedFactPOJO() >> InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0) >> then Why not a single Pattern? fact:InsertedFactPOJO(countdownLatch == 0) If (and only if) there is not more than a single InsertedFactPOJO in WM it doesn't matter (except confuse readers) but otherwise it produces more or less disturbing effects. -W _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
