Drools.
Sure. The solution I am taking right
now is dont use dynamic
properties, which is not optimal
(depending on the problem property
changes not being batched defeats the
purpose of dynamic beans).
The bottom line is that I was hoping
that this feature would (1)
either already be taken care of in
4.0 or (2) become a feature request
for future releases.
-- yuri
> No we don't do anything to batch
property change listener results. But
> maybe you can do this yourself.
> instead of calling modify, add
it to a transaction list (that you make
> available in the current
context). Then at the end of the consequence
> you can iterate that list and
call modify on each object. Or
> alternatively don't use dynamic
properties.
>
> Mark
> Yuri de Wit wrote:
> > I am not talking about
assert, but modify. I have a dynamic fact
> > already asserted but now I
need to perform N changes on N different
> > properties on the same
object on the same consequence. Drools is going
> > to traverse the RETE
network N times once for each time the
> > PropertiesListener is
called (each setProperty called).
> >
> > -- yuri
> >
> >> Why would doing the
assert work at the end of the consequence be any
> >> quicker than doing it
during the consequence?
> >>
> >> Mark
> >> Yuri de Wit wrote:
> >> > I noticed that
changes performed on facts asserted dynamically causes
> >> > the fact to be
modified right away and therefore triggering a RETE
> >> > network traversal
and rule schedulings.
> >> >
> >> > For apps with a
large number of facts this could be a significant
> >> > scalability
problem. At least in my case, I would like to be able to
> >> > use dynamic facts
and perform any number of updates and have those
> >> > updates commited
to working memory only when the rule consequence is
> >> > completed.
> >> >
> >> > Looking at the
code, it seems that it would not be a major effort to
> >> > collect the facts
received by the ReteooWorkingMemory.propertyChange
> >> > and perform the
actual modifyObject() only when the consequence
> >> > evaluation is
actually completed.
> >> >
> >> > Does that makes
sense? Or are there side effects I am not seeing? Is
> >> > this a problem
that 4.0 already resolves?
> >> >
> >> > thanks in advance,
> >> >
> >> > -- yuri
> >> >
_______________________________________________
> >> > rules-users
mailing list
> >> >
> >>
> >>
_______________________________________________
> >> rules-users mailing list
> >>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
>