[rules-users] Re: Independent rule evaluations

[Yuri]

Edson Tirelli <tirelli <at> post.com> writes:
>     Yuri,    Right now, the only way is to work with different rule bases and
working memories. Even using agenda-groups or rule-flow, rules are still being
eagerly evaluated, as this is how standard Rete works. 
>     The problem of creating and canceling too many activations is a known
problem and the only way around it right now is sequential mode, but sequential
mode has some restrictions on what you can do. For instance, you must work with
a stateless working memory and can not modify/retract facts in your rules to
work with sequential mode, but it will give you big performance boosts.
>     We are evaluating the possibility of creating physical network partitions
for next version, but that will require some R&D yet.    []s    Edson

Edson, thanks for the explanation!

At this point we are considering a scheme to create additional working memories
and have a way to propagate inserts/updates/retracts selectively.

Is my assumption correct that if I make sure a "barrier" column/constrains sits
at the top of the rete network that I could delay the insertion of the "barrier"
and achieve what I am looking for without having to split the working memories?