Feel free to add your comments to http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-41 so when the time comes, we can think about implementing some more options to change the behaviour declaratively.
On 5/6/06, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, I have a long term JIRA open on enhancing "no-loop" behaviour which overlaps with this. The idea is to allow people to specify conditions which mean that a certain firing (rule + tuples/non existence) only ever happens one (optionally). So its an issue close to my heart... On 5/6/06, Peter Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A possible solution to this specific type of problem is to define an > object > type as fire once only. for example, JESS has no-loop at the rule level, > but > it also supports declaring a deftemplate so it does the same thing. > > if a person really wants to fire once, it should be explicitly declared. > > On 5/5/06, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > quite often there isn't one size fits all. In such a case we should > > maybe try looking at supporting both. > > Peter Van Weert wrote: > > > We are actually writing a paper that, amongst other things, touches > > > the subject on how a LEAPS-like executed language (CHR) should/could > > > > behave in these circumstances. We also had the fire-once versus > > > fire-many semantics debate at our research group, and the outcome is > > > still more or less undecided. Most agree that it should be fire-many > > > > (we have a similar "resolution"), but some still believe fire-once > is > > > the way to go (we have our own Alexander ;-)). Just to say: you are > > > not alone Alexander, but personally I'm happy to see the Drools > people > > > reach a resolution towards the fire-many semantics! > > > > > > Greets, > > > Peter > > > > > > Michael Neale wrote: > > > >
