[rules-users] Logical insert and cyclic rules dependences

[zephyr]

In this case yes, but generally those dependences can be much more
complicated and this example is the simplest ilustration of the problem.

It can also be

a-> b ->c ->d ->b

(that makes b,c,d equivalent, but is little less trivial to detect)

or more complicated
a->b
b->c
c and d -> b
d nad a are facts, then a is removed
c and b are not eqivalent, but still support each other while there is fact
d
etc.

I just want logical facts that are not connected by any rule path with
inserted facts and only stay because of logical fact cycles to disapear.

Im writing a system that takes user generated dependences as input and its
main goal is to deal with different consequences, i thought drools might be
a right tool to base this system on, this didnt work so i wonder is it a
common problem and is there an easy way to deal with it (or some way to
change drools to work like this).

--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Logical-insert-and-cyclic-rules-dependences-tp4018381p4018397.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.