After reading this description, I don't see any reason for using auto-focus
in the rule you have presented in the original email; especially the
combination with setFocus() in the RHS looks rather kinky to me.
Do you really mean that the final state after group2 is expected to be
"*in*consistent"
w.r.t. the checks in group1?
Anyway, I would use a rule in MAIN to give the focus to group1 and then to
group2 and avoid auto-focus and any "control logic" in the rules of either
group.
-W
On 26 January 2011 20:47, Evert Penninckx <evert.penninckx(a)gmail.com> wrote:
manstis wrote:
>
> Were the rules in Agenda Group "group1" executed, or merely evaluated?
>
> Agenda Group controls which activations on the agenda are executed, rules
> in
> all Agenda Groups will continue to be evaluated.
>
I figured as much. But they're still being fired.
I haven't had the chance to test this on a simple case. My ruleset has for
now about 5 to 10 rules in group1 and about 15 in group2. Group1 evaluates
the initial state of the working memory and signals possible
inconsistencies
(inserted as message facts in drool). The second group modifies facts in
the
working memory. The final state is expected to be inconsistent in regard to
the consistency checks on the initial state. Yet, I see warnings being
entered in drools after group2 modified facts....
I could consider a rule flow, but the checks are only there to debug
abnormal behaviour and not related to a business process or something. I'd
really want to keep it hidden from the java-code calling the drools rules.
Grtz
E.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Clearing-an-AgendaGro...
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