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
Arjun Dhar wrote: 
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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users