Re: [rules-users] Whether use agenda group or rule flow

Essentially, agenda-groups and rule-flow groups do the same job. They filter rules based on their group membership such that rules from active groups will fire. The difference is in the implementation. Ruleflow-groups require a ruleflow to be defined. A group will become active when the token has reached the corresponding rule task. When working with agenda-groups, focus has to be set either explicitly, by calling setFocus(), or automatically, by using the attribute auto-focus. Most of the times, there will probably be no clear preference of one over the other. Imho, it seems that rule-flow groups are a bit more understandable and a little bit easier to debug. Agenda-groups, however, allow for more flexibility because the sequence of the groups can be defined dynamically. As an example where I consider agenda-groups a better choice: Imagine there is a supplement/reduction that has to be applied at different moments during price calculation, depending on certain parameters. Imho, it is easier to set focus to the supplement/reduction group whenever necessary, rather than implementing all different branches in a flow. If the sequence is fixed and well known, ruleflow-groups are probably better. But anyway, feel free to disagree. Regards, Frank Zhao Yi wrote: -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Whether-use-agenda-group-or-rule-flow-t... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.