If your rules are dynamic, would you still want to retract a fact not
matching any of your current rules,
knowing that a new rule might appear later, which would be activated by that
fact?
This said, the problem here is "garbage-collecting" facts which have been
insert, but are in a "zombie"
status, since there is no pattern matching them - not even partially. This
could be a useful feature (Mario?),
you could open a feature request JIRA and let the developers discuss it.
For now I would suggest this: whenever you insert an object, you will get
back a FactHandle.
Cast it to org.drools.common.InternalFactHandle and look at
getFirstLeftTuple() and getFirstRightTuple().
I haven't checked it completely, but I would say that if the fact does not
participate in any tuple, it
might be worthy retracting.
Best
Davide
ps your case "second after first" is a well known problem... and not only
for drools! If your "first"
matches your conditions, it will have to stay there waiting for a
"second"... You'll have to
"close the horizon" explicitly to remove those "firsts" which have
been
there for "too long", whatever
that means for you :)
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/How-to-retract-events-that-don-t-match-...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.