Re: [rules-users] Some Questions related to execution

Maybe this is too simplistic, but wouldn't the following accomplish the same thing: Rule #1 [when] Person (gender == female) ... Rule #2 [when] Person (gender != female) and Procedure( needToDone == "ABC" ) Given the OR behaviour, you could probably combine the above two separate rules into one rule with an OR between them. Yes, it may look a little ugly, but I think it would do what you want, right? -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of kashif10 Sent: February 11, 2011 8:51 AM To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [rules-users] Some Questions related to execution Thanks for your reply, I am alreday only checking/considering the unique resultIds, returning as Global Vector"resultIds" from my Rules. I have around 1000s of .drl (a Rule definitions). And Each Rule definition (.drl) have several conditions which are Anded or ORed with each other. In Actual my Question is that how can I write a rule definition which short circuits, So the performnace will increase for the case. That if Person matches it will not go to evaluate Procedure. Only go to procedure If person doesn't match. May I have to replace "or" with some other operator ? Person ( gender == "Female" ) or <what shoul Come here> Procedure( needToDone == "ABC" ) Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Some-Questions-relat ed-to-execution-tp2470079p2473608.html 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