Re: [rules-users] Re: Independent rule evaluations

Edson Tirelli <tirelli <at> post.com> writes: > Yuri, Right now, the only way is to work with different rule bases and working memories. Even using agenda-groups or rule-flow, rules are still being eagerly evaluated, as this is how standard Rete works. > The problem of creating and canceling too many activations is a known problem and the only way around it right now is sequential mode, but sequential mode has some restrictions on what you can do. For instance, you must work with a stateless working memory and can not modify/retract facts in your rules to work with sequential mode, but it will give you big performance boosts. > We are evaluating the possibility of creating physical network partitions for next version, but that will require some R&D yet. []s Edson Edson, thanks for the explanation! At this point we are considering a scheme to create additional working memories and have a way to propagate inserts/updates/retracts selectively. Is my assumption correct that if I make sure a "barrier" column/constrains sits at the top of the rete network that I could delay the insertion of the "barrier" and achieve what I am looking for without having to split the working memories? _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users