Re: [rules-dev] trigger patterns
On 14/07/2012, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)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