no not 3.0.
On 3/20/06, Jayaram C S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael Neale <michael.neale <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > > There hasn't really been much of a call for it in the past actually. > > Normally flow control has a better solution then forcing things to > happen in > > a certain order. > > > > I think the ideal solution to that is backwards chaining, which is > something > > we want to do. So a rule can request that the calculation be done, and > it is > > done just once (and only when/if it is needed to complete a rules LHS). > This > > is something we are looking at doing very soon as it has lots of other > uses. > > > So is Backward chaining on agenda for Drools 3 release ??? > > There are a few instances when flow control is mandatory, for example in > cases > where a second rule has dependency on the first . Currently I am handling > such > conditions outside the engine. > > Is it possible to incorporate it into the rule files. This would be one > great > step forward ! > > > > > > >
