Re: [rules-users] Logical insert and cyclic rules dependences

In this case yes, but generally those dependences can be much more complicated and this example is the simplest ilustration of the problem. It can also be a-> b ->c ->d ->b (that makes b,c,d equivalent, but is little less trivial to detect) or more complicated a->b b->c c and d -> b d nad a are facts, then a is removed c and b are not eqivalent, but still support each other while there is fact d etc. I just want logical facts that are not connected by any rule path with inserted facts and only stay because of logical fact cycles to disapear. Im writing a system that takes user generated dependences as input and its main goal is to deal with different consequences, i thought drools might be a right tool to base this system on, this didnt work so i wonder is it a common problem and is there an easy way to deal with it (or some way to change drools to work like this). -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Logical-insert-and-cyclic-rules-depende... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.