On 11 May 2013, at 16:23, Sonata <[email protected]> wrote: > After a few testing, it seems that this "rule extends rule" feature is not > exactly what I want. > > Say rule "B" extends "A" > > rule "A" will be evaluated. This is OK. > > when it comes to rule "B", first, conditions in rule "A" will be evaluated > again, then the conditions in rule "B" will be evaluated. > > That is not what I expected in this feature. May be it is only half baked? > > I would love to see this feature to be enchanted. Like if rule "B" extends > "A", rule "C" extends "A" > then once rule "A" is evaluated, the result (to be executed or not) should > be used when evaluating rule "B" and rule "C". > > If rule "A" does not match the conditions, none of rule "B" nor rule "C" > should be evaluated again. > > If rule "A" matches the conditions, when it comes to rule "B" or rule "C", > those conditions in rule "A" should not be evaluated again. > > Otherwise it is just like I repeated the conditions of rule "A" in rule "B" > and rule "C" again. The only saving from this feature is in the code by > typing less. "extends" implicitly takes advantage of node sharing. If B extends A, when you evaluate B you effectively get A for free. It will not need to re-evaluate any conditions specific to A, as they re already done.
Mark > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Agenda-group-in-fact-insert-time-tp4023749p4023779.html > Sent from the Drools: User forum 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
