I have /update()/ on consequence/action part of rules, which I can't void.
It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself. If you can't remove
update() then this means that you do need the changes to facts being
made known to the rules engine so that it can fire rules (again), due to
changes made. This is the only purpose of an update() call; changes to
the Java object are made by setter calls, as always.
-W
I
guess there is no way and rule engine is doing the right thing then.
--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rule-fires-several-times-tp3466250p3468183.html