Re: [rules-users] persistent java objects in working memory
--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Chris Richmond <crichmond(a)referentia.com> wrote:
So you are saying I should preferably do
the update in the outer application loop rather than in the
rule action even though I am using the lock-on-active statement
Basically, yes. The update statement should be used to indicate that an object has
changed. Using it for other purposes is of course possible, but I'd avoid it unless
there was good reason.
See the attached sample project. Is this what you're doing? I put in a rule that
checks the value of an object that is modified externally:
rule "Conditional Match"
when
c : Cycle()
d : Data( value < 5 )
then
System.out.println( "Conditional Match: " + c + " with " + d );
end
Works fine.
Attachments:
- DroolsCycle.tar.gz (application/x-gzip — 4.6 KB)