Hi Sebastian, As per your last email, your use case sounds very similar to my use case scenario and I would second the suggestion from Wolfgang, switch from realtime to pseudoclock may help.
I think the thread "[rules-users] Question about Fusion pseudoclock" in the mailing list could help, and in my use case scenario I found the following code example *extremely* valuable because I do mostly same https://github.com/droolsjbpm/droolsjbpm-contributed-experiments/blob/master/twittercbr/src/main/java/org/drools/examples/twittercbr/TwitterCBROffline.java I hope this helps you too. This approach would solve for "network delay issue" but will induce another problem, in case "network" never restores or delay gets outrageous. Ciao MM On 4 Jun 2014 12:00, "SebastianStehle" <mail2ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > I see that the update process is not optimal, but can you tell me if my > simple example should work or not? > > We get measurements from sensors. Because of network delay and other > intermediate processes the timestamp of the measurements can be some > seconds > behind the time of the insert. In this case the rules with after would not > work correctly as well. > > I am new to drools, so there is a high chance that I make some mistakes. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Fusion-Insert-Events-with-timestamp-in-the-past-tp4029843p4029847.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
