[rules-dev] allowing self joining combinations

[Michael Neale]

ok good to know.

Someone presented a reasonable case for it to me, they have a large number
of rules and small number of facts.

In any case, rule analysis feedback can eventually "warn" people of dangers
for certain rule styles. Runtime statistics could also perhaps eventually
montior, so there are ways to address it.

Thanks,

Michael.

On 3/26/07, Edson Tirelli <tirelli at post.com> wrote:
>
>    Michael,
>
>    In 3.1 the default is now to allow self joins (we need to add BIG
> warnings to the documentation due to this change) and an option was
> added to RuleBaseConfiguration to remove self joins.
>
>    []s
>    Edson
>
> Michael Neale wrote:
>
> > I know that we by default remove self joins, ie:
> >
> > when
> >   Foo()
> >   Foo()
> >
> > will not match for the same instance of Foo - is it possible to turn
> > that off? I know we talked about it at one point, not sure what the
> > latest position is (someone was asking me and I can't recall what our
> > final position is). FYI Jess and Jrules both self join by default.
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >rules-dev mailing list
> >rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Edson Tirelli
> Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> Office: +55 11 3124-6000
> Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20070326/a6af7b1b/attachment.html