[rules-users] Avoiding writing redundant rules

Hello, in our company we use DRL-files and we have the problem with the fact, that rules have no 'else'-part. We've read in this forum, that we can simulate the else-part of a rule by declaring a new rule which has the constraints of the first rule, but negated. We regard this as some kind of redundancy in our code , besides our rule-files become twice as large and drools have to evaluate the (almost) same constraints twice. We wanted to ask you if it makes sense to declare additional variables in order to mark if a rule has fired. Something like this: <code> declare FirstRuleHasFired value: boolean end ... //Insert an object from type FirstRuleHasFired ... rule "FirstRule" salience 100 when Person (name) then //do some job firstRuleHasFired.setValue(true) ; end rule "SecondRule" salience 90 when not(FirstRuleHasFired(value == true)) then //do some other job ) .. </code> Or do you know some other useful tricks to avoid the redundancy I have written about? Thanks a lot for every idea and/or advice! Regards, skasab2s -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Avoiding-writing-redu... Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.