Re: [rules-users] Action

First solution is the one I use almost all times, and moving facts from a session to another is far less costly than propagating facts for rules that will never be fired... The second solution could be great too, but I am not sure that it will cut all propagations. If you have this : rule "unused" when exists ControlFact("some_group_id") MyFact(att == value1) then ... end I am prety sure that MyFact(att == value1) will generate a node which will be updated at each MyFact insert/update/retract, regardless of the first condition is true or not ... but may be I am wrong ... Globally, my advice is : if you can partition your rules in independant groups, do it really and create independant sessions (especially if performances become critical). ----- Mail original ----- De: "Mauricio Salatino" <salaboy(a)gmail.com&gt; À: "Rules Users List" <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Envoyé: Mercredi 21 Décembre 2011 18:28:52 Objet: Re: [rules-users] Action It depends on your problem, but yes.. it could be more efficient, except for the fact that you need to move all the objects from one session to the other. Another alternative is to use some kind of control fact that only activate the second group of rules when the first group has been evaluated. Cheers On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:25 PM, lhorton <LHorton(a)abclegal.com&gt; wrote: --  - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com  - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar  - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio - _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users