[rules-users] Fusion, Insert Events with timestamp in the past.

[Wolfgang Laun]

On 04/06/2014, SebastianStehle <mail2stehle at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see that the update process is not optimal, but can you tell me if my
> simple example should work or not?
>
> We get measurements from sensors. Because of network delay and other
> intermediate processes the timestamp of the measurements can be some
> seconds
> behind the time of the insert.

How can this be? t(measurement) < t(insert), which is "before".

As long as network delay is uniform for all sources, it doesn't
matter. If there are different sensor positions with data being
relayed over different links, delays may depend on the source. But in
this case, you are up the creek anyway.

-W

> In this case the rules with after would not
> work correctly as well.
>
> I am new to drools, so there is a high chance that I make some mistakes.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Fusion-Insert-Events-with-timestamp-in-the-past-tp4029843p4029847.html
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>