[rules-dev] trigger patterns

[Mark Proctor]

I think for now I'll leave it with !*, and make sure that ? works for 
patterns, with the same behaviour as it has for queries - i.e. modifies 
and retracts will be ignored. We can look at other types of behaviour 
later, when we start to see some uses for them.

To clarify the other type of behaviour that I think is possible is for a 
? type construct, that will not propagate on insert (it has to be left 
triggered), but it may propagate on retract and/or modify. Potentially 
this could be annotation that controls the behaviour of what actions are 
and are not propagated.

Mark
On 14/07/2012 17:29, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> On 14/07/2012, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
>> I've been thinking about something i think might make authoring rules
>> easier. I've found that often in rules only one of the patterns is the
>> reactive trigger pattern,
> Agreed, only some facts may be intended to undergo any changes, or
> you don't want a change in a certain fact or slot of a fact to cause
> refiring of rules.
>
>> and I use techniques to stop the reactivity of
>> other patterns; such as using watch(!*).
> I've never felt the need to do this. If changing a fact's field shouldn't
> cause refiring, I don't use modify, doing what I call a "dirty update".
>
>> However even with !* you'll get
>> reactivity when something is first inserted, just not after
>> modificiation. So I've been thinking about formalising this.
>>
> A good use case would help to clarify the issue.
>
> Thanks
> -W
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev