You don't have to worry.  The engine is acting as it should.

The rule Paul had was this, a bit simplified for clarity:

rule "direct"
when
   m : Move()
   not Win(first == m.second)
then
       insert(new Win(m.first));
end

If the insertion order is [Move(1,2), Move(2,3)] then the rule matches first on Move(2,3) and Win(2) is inserted.  No other rule fires because now Move(1,2) and Win(2) match up, removing the instantiation with Move(1,2) from the agenda.

If the insertion order is [Move(2,3), Move(1,2)] then the order is this:

matched Move(1,2) insert Win(1)
matched Move(2,3) insert Win(2)

The insertion of Win(1) in the first firing does NOT prevent the instantiation with Move(2,3) from then firing.

So it's all good. :)  Sample code and output attached.

--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Greg Barton <greg_barton@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Greg Barton <greg_barton@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Negation semantics in Drools

> To: "Rules Users List" <rules-users@lists.jboss.org>

> Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 8:50 PM

> It is on the latest snapshot release,
> 5.0.0.20090417.005612-483
>
> --- On Thu, 4/16/09, Edson Tirelli <tirelli@post.com>
> wrote:
>
> >     We need to investigate if that is still happening
> in
> > latest trunk.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users


     

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users