[rules-users] The update function inside a rule

[Wolfgang Laun]

On 30 March 2011 12:47, marc <marc.strabin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was using only one fireAllRules() after insert(message) and not
> fireUntilHalt(). But is should be enough : as the rule change & update the
> fact, the rule is applied again (10 seconds later, and not 1second).

If there are no timers, fireAllRules() terminates as soon as all pending
activations have been fired. Changing a fact later on will create activations,
but not fire rules.

>
> With fireUntilHalt() the rule work fine (and without timer)... but it burns
> the CPU (the java process reach 50% on a bi-proc) while a simple call to
> fireAllRues() after the timer update use nothing... This doesn't make sense
> to me because the drools engine is only notified of a fact modification only
> 1 time per second (the timer update), so it should only fire all rules a
> this moment and that all (just like a fireAllRules() after the
> update(SimpleClock) does), so why does it takes so much CPU ? I can post the
> code but I should open a other thread because it not the same "problem" ?

Another known problem, I think. I don't see anything like that while
using a (my)
build from a developer baaseline about 6 weeks ago.

>
> About adding log to trace the values of endDate, the traces show correct
> values. But it doesn't trace the value viewed by the drools engine itself
> wich could be different (just as if I don't do an update() after a
> modification)

Sorry, but your way of expressing yourself beats me again.
-W

>
> Marc
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/The-update-function-inside-a-rule-tp2747484p2753098.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
>