Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule

From: marc <marc.strabin(a)gmail.com&gt; Subject: Re: [rules-users] The update function inside a rule To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 5:47 AM I was using only one fireAllRules() after insert(message) and not fireUntilHalt(). But is should be enough : as the rule change & update the fact, the rule is applied again (10 seconds later, and not 1second). With fireUntilHalt() the rule work fine (and without timer)... but it burns the CPU (the java process reach 50% on a bi-proc) while a simple call to fireAllRues() after the timer update use nothing... This doesn't make sense to me because the drools engine is only notified of a fact modification only 1 time per second (the timer update), so it should only fire all rules a this moment and that all (just like a fireAllRules() after the update(SimpleClock) does), so why does it takes so much CPU ? I can post the code but I should open a other thread because it not the same "problem" ? About adding log to trace the values of endDate, the traces show correct values. But it doesn't trace the value viewed by the drools engine itself wich could be different (just as if I don't do an update() after a modification) Marc -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/The-update-function-i... Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users