Re: [rules-users] Fusion and open-ended intervals?

If I understand you correctly Edson, you have provided a better description to solution 1) in my post above. This works to a degree but leaves a bit to be desired. For example when correlating instant events as "during" the interval events (ie, startX, endX, eventX) those correlations cannot simply use "during", because there may be no eventX yet (ie, endX has not yet occurred). This requires patterns of the form: instant: InstantEvent beginX: BeginX (or (and instant after beginX not endX(id == beginX.id) instant is during eventX(id == beginX.id) Which like I said gets messy. Again, if the @timestamp and @duration were not stored in the fact handle and could be altered via a working-memory update then "instant is during eventX" would work in all instances. The trade off is that it would make the drools internals much more complex as behaviors scheduled based on @timestamp and @duration would need to be modified according on a wm.update, along with all race conditions that would entail. It could also be argued that modifying an event's timestamp smells for purity reasons. But that would depend the perspective you take. Some events unfold over time (hence the modeling construct of using startX, endX, eventX). So a counter argument might be that a CEP engine should have first class support events of this nature. -- View this message in context: http://n3.nabble.com/Fusion-and-open-ended-intervals-tp719076p721426.html Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users