[rules-users] Decision Tables: Probelm with sequence=true

[Mark Proctor]

Actually I'm speaking rubbish they all have getInstance(), except 
Composite, so it should be fine.

Mark
Mark Proctor wrote:
> As the docs state sequential rete, I'm assuming this is what you mean, 
> does not allow full inference modification of data does not result in 
> re-evaluation of rules, i.e. update() does nothing.
>
> You can achieve what you want using a custom Conflict Resolution 
> Strategy, however I advise you to be careful here and understand 
> exactly what you are asking for....
> RuleBaseConfiguration has a property:
> public void setConflictResolver(ConflictResolver conflictResolver);
>
> RuleBaseConfiguration conf = new RuleBaseConfiguration();
> conf.setConflictResolver( new LoaderOrderConflictResolver() );
>
> Or you can use the property, with the value of the fully qualified class:
> drools.conflictResolver = org.drools.conflict.LoaderOrderConflictResolver
>
> However for the property version I made a mistake.... I forgot to add 
> the getInstance() method, which is needed for the property loading to 
> work. I suggest you subclass LoadOrderConflictResolver and add the 
> getInstance method and specify that, if you use the property approach. 
> I'll fix this for 4.0.1
>
> Mark
>
>
> Arjun Dhar wrote:
>> Hi,
>>  I usually use decision tables without sequence. But there was a 
>> request Not to use priority and if there was a conflict then the rule 
>> on top should get priority.
>>
>> I thought, sequence = true was a good way of ensuring that. But in 
>> the rules I call update(); this forces all the rules to fire twice.
>>
>> I think this is a bug; without sequence the update does not cause 
>> such problems.
>>
>> Please advise,
>> Arjun
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>   
>
>