Re: [rules-users] Fusion, Insert Events with timestamp in the past.

Concerning point #1, I'm not sure I understand what you mean, I'm sorry, but might be connected to my last statement about "this approach would solve for "network delay issue" but will induce another problem (...)" Because basically with this approach I personally found that also: a. data is buffered and inserted in chronological order b. pseudoclock is advanced anyway after a "deathwatch" period, normally to activate negative patterns as you mention - thus at the same time discarding data if arriving after the deathwatch already triggered c. pseudoclock is advanced anyway to trigger timers of rules This is the part which gets complex and the reason behind I mentioned I do mostly same as code example linked. In my use case scenario, implementation of deathwatch + advance of pseudoclock anyway, do fit the bill; but of course result may vary depending case by case. Concerning point #2 in my use case timer of rules do work, even if I use pseudoclock. But again, result may differ depending on the rules specification, I suppose. Sorry I cannot be of more help, I thought worthy share my experience anyway because I felt was very similar scenario, and fortunately the system behaves as expected. Ciao MM On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:07 PM, SebastianStehle <mail2stehle(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: