And what about ruleflow-group ?
There is no network filtering for that too ? The
ruleflow-group behaves like an agenda filter, but still
evaluate all nodes ?
Could we imagine setting "tags" to nodes, and stop
propagation for node that does not declare the current task
tag ?
Le 21/03/2011 14:20, Edson Tirelli a écrit :
The algorithm as is does eager
evaluation, as for the general case that is still better
than doing selective evaluation.
If, in your case, the decision of
which rules to fire is an arbitrary application decision,
and not based on the actual constraints of the rules
themselves, then the only way would be by creating a
control fact:
ControlFact( phase == Phase.ONE )
ControlFact( phase == Phase.TWO )
This way, if the control fact is the
first pattern in each rule it effectively disables all the
beta evaluations for rules of phases other than the
current one. Just be aware that by blocking the eager
evaluation this way, phase switches are heavier than
without the control fact, where most constraints were
already previously evaluated. Obvious, but worth saying
out loud... :)
There is also a feature that
Leonardo is working on that makes the engine automatically
unlink and relink parts of the network, based on the
existence and possibility of matching the other required
facts in a rule LHS. It might achieve similar results to
what you are looking for in some cases, but that is
totally based on the constraints in there and not on any
arbitrary application decision.