Just some thoughts/comments... It looks like you are trying to solve a logic that has conditions that are dependent between rules. This usually gets messy like you have observed. I like to keep my rules "atomic" without ANY dependencies to other rules and I try to avoid controlling order of execution. As you stated, if you make every rule atomic, it has to account for all conditions - which is not necessarily bad, but your rules will have many conditions that seem redundant when you look at the other rules. There are many posts on this topic, you may want to scan through the posts. One approach is to use "stated facts" and let rete do its work.
If your domain is to check eligibility, you can consider writing only the rules that evaluate for true or only the rules that evaluate to false. Typically, for eligibility, you only evaluate when eligibility would be false, that will reduce your rules. Otherwise, there will be plenty of gaps in your rules. I know I dint give an answer that you are looking for, but some things to consider. Good Luck :) -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-decision-tables-conditional-matching-tp4025603p4025645.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
