[rules-users] Firing Rules in Rule Flows

[Michal Bali]

AFAIK, your understanding is correct.
What fireAllRules does is it executes rules on agenda(contains rules with
all conditions matched) until the agenda is empty. A rule can get to agenda
when you modify a fact or insert/retract a fact. If you call fireAllRules on
an empty agenda no rule will be fired.
The ruleflow groups just make the rules execute in specific order.


On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:22 PM, keithnielsen <keithnielsen at discover.com>wrote:

>
> I have a fairly involved rule flow consisting of rule flow groups. I am
> trying to understand
> if the behavior I am seeing and my understanding of it are correct.
>
> The flow executes as exepected the first pass through, objects are inserted
> and the rules associated with the different nodes are executed. On the
> second pass through the flow various nodes are triggered but none of the
> ruleflow groups are activated/executed. My understanding of this is as
> follows:
>
> 1) The only way to have these ruleflow groups fire/execute again is to
> insert objects that cause a match or to fire all rules on the session
> again.
> 2) Constraints on split/join nodes are always evaluated and don't need to
> be
> activated which is different than the constraints on a given rule
> 3) Rules that don't have any constraints, i.e. they are always true will
> only execute once and will only execute with a call to fire all rules
>
> Assuming my understanding of what is going on correct I have the following
> questions:
>
> Q. My particular use case is really screen flow/business process, and it
> would be nice if I came to a node, that the rule was always evaluated, i.e.
> currently rules that always evaluate to true aren't fired more than once.
> For instance I have a node that simply instantiates a dialog and waits for
> user input and I always want to instantiate that dialog when I come to that
> node, regardless of the facts. Is there a way to achieve this without
> firing
> all rules again?
> Q. Is firing all rules within a rule flow a legitimate way of achieving the
> desired affect?
>
> Shouldn't the ruleflow-group associated with a node always be evaluated if
> the node is triggered? As it happens now, the rule flow gets stuck in an
> infinite loop as the node contraints are conitniously evaluated but the
> actual rule contraints are not. Seems inconsistent too me especially in the
> context of a business process/rule flow.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Firing-Rules-in-Rule-Flows-tp21489239p21489239.html
> Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20090116/43e1361f/attachment.html