We did something similar - we implemented a table-based mechanism for turning rules on and off. The business users have a UI that allows them to toggle the rules via a simple boolean value. These values are cached and refreshed on a regular basis. Rather than inserting that cache as a fact, I chose to take advantage of the 'enabled' property, e.g.: // ***************************************************************** // Rule 001 - Operator Flagged // When the operator has flagged the order as suspect, add suspect reason code "O" to // the order. // ***************************************************************** rule "Rule 001 - Operator Flagged" enabled (FraudRuleEvaluationHelper.isRuleEnabled("Rule 001 - Operator Flagged")) To me, it's cleaner in that it separates the enablement of a rule from the actual business logic of the rule. The only drawback to this approach is that we have to keep the rule name and the string we pass to the enabled check in sync. In hindsight, it would have been better to just use rule numbers instead of the whole name. I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate for your use case since you have some business logic involved in the decision, but it may give you some ideas. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Exclude-certain-rules-tp3517185p3519038... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

If you want to modify the "enabled" property of a rule according to facts in WM, why don't you add a first condition on that fact ? If the problem is to groups some rules under this condition, you can use rule inheritance (extends keyword) : all LSH of parent rule will be inherited by child rules. Simply put your "enabling" conditions in parent rule. I don't know if "enabled" can be a fact relative expression. I thin that this depends on when the enabled property is take into account by drools : - if compile time, ie the disabled rule does not even contribute in the RETE building, it will be impossible to bind the enabled property to something in WM - if run time , ie the rule exists in the RETE, but cannot be added to agenda (or filtered), may be it could be possible, but to me, it is far much cleaner to play with facts in conditions (which are made for this ...). ----- Mail original ----- De: "icechunk" <icechunk(a)gmail.com&gt; À: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Novembre 2011 18:14:48 Objet: Re: [rules-users] Exclude certain rules Thanks, wasn't aware of enabled attribute. Is there any way to insert a fact into the enabled expression, say to the helper class being called? -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Exclude-certain-rules-tp3517185p3519142... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Just a random thought but would the declarative agenda (for 5.3?) provide any help? sent on the move On 18 Nov 2011 21:23, "Jamie" <jshaw(a)llbean.com&gt; wrote: