Errata Corrige: "Because basically with this approach I personally found that also *you have to*:"
I missed the *you have to* bit, sorry. On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Matteo Mortari <matteo.mort...@gmail.com> wrote: > Concerning point #1, I'm not sure I understand what you mean, I'm sorry, > but might be connected to my last statement about "this approach would > solve for "network delay issue" but will induce another problem (...)" > > Because basically with this approach I personally found that also: > a. data is buffered and inserted in chronological order > b. pseudoclock is advanced anyway after a "deathwatch" period, normally to > activate negative patterns as you mention - thus at the same time > discarding data if arriving after the deathwatch already triggered > c. pseudoclock is advanced anyway to trigger timers of rules > > This is the part which gets complex and the reason behind I mentioned I > do mostly same as code example linked. > > In my use case scenario, implementation of deathwatch + advance of > pseudoclock anyway, do fit the bill; but of course result may vary > depending case by case. > > > Concerning point #2 in my use case timer of rules do work, even if I use > pseudoclock. But again, result may differ depending on the rules > specification, I suppose. > > > Sorry I cannot be of more help, I thought worthy share my experience > anyway because I felt was very similar scenario, and fortunately the system > behaves as expected. > > Ciao > MM > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:07 PM, SebastianStehle <mail2ste...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks for your answer. >> >> We already use the pseudo-clock for running unit tests, but there might be >> some other problems: >> >> 1. If you do not move forward step by step you can miss the exact times >> when >> using negative patterns. e.g. in my example you would need to step forward >> with AdvanceTiem with about 100ms or 1sec or so. >> >> 2. We also use timers, this does not work with the pseudo clock as well, >> same problem like above. >> >> In my understand the example should work, if not I dont see what the >> @timestamp config is for. >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Fusion-Insert-Events-with-timestamp-in-the-past-tp4029843p4029852.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
