As the docs state sequential rete, I'm assuming this is what you mean, does not allow full inference modification of data does not result in re-evaluation of rules, i.e. update() does nothing. You can achieve what you want using a custom Conflict Resolution Strategy, however I advise you to be careful here and understand exactly what you are asking for.... RuleBaseConfiguration has a property: public void setConflictResolver(ConflictResolver conflictResolver); RuleBaseConfiguration conf = new RuleBaseConfiguration(); conf.setConflictResolver( new LoaderOrderConflictResolver() ); Or you can use the property, with the value of the fully qualified class: drools.conflictResolver = org.drools.conflict.LoaderOrderConflictResolver However for the property version I made a mistake.... I forgot to add the getInstance() method, which is needed for the property loading to work. I suggest you subclass LoadOrderConflictResolver and add the getInstance method and specify that, if you use the property approach. I'll fix this for 4.0.1 Mark Arjun Dhar wrote: > Hi, > I usually use decision tables without sequence. But there was a > request Not to use priority and if there was a conflict then the rule > on top should get priority. > > I thought, sequence = true was a good way of ensuring that. But in > the rules I call update(); this forces all the rules to fire twice. > > I think this is a bug; without sequence the update does not cause > such problems. > > Please advise, > Arjun > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > >

they all have getInstance(), except > Composite, so it should be fine. > Hi Mark, I appreciate the tip regarding writing cutom ConflictResolvers, I needed that as a develper who cant keep his nose out of the core code. But right now as an end user I have a problem. I opened my mouth about rules of same priority executing top to down. Unfortunately thats only garunteed with "sequence = true"; but I have an update that causes these rules to fire again. >From an end user perspective and an black-box tester, I feel this is a bug as the behavior is inconsistant between, "sequence=true" and "sequence=false" Logically if the function of sequence in decision tables is just to sequence the execution then nothing in the rules should cause them to fire twice. Please let me now if i should a file a JIRA for this? thanks, Arjun _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Mark Proctor <mproctor <at> codehaus.org> writes: > I just looked at the decision-table implementation. The sequential > option there is different from rulebase sequential mode, my mistake > sorry. sequential the option just sets a salience value on each row, > based on row number. So I see no reason why this shouldn't work. > Mark > Hi Mark, I sequenced the rolws in reverse order (lowermost row lowest priority); and it did not fire the rules twice. Sequence in decision table is definitely doing somethingf funny. Ok, I'll try and write my own Conflict Resolution strategy so that I'm sure of a predictable result. I have some custom requirements: 1. Based on a flag at runtime, execute only first activation 2. Top row should win in decision table 3. If a rule conflicts with a nother rule, which has more conditions satisfied then the engine should be intelligent enough to choose the more specific rule (Specifity) I dont think Drools 4 supports my requirements, so will try and buuld a ConflictResolver. Are there any particular notes that I need to keep in mind when designing my own strategy? Thanks, Arjun _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users