Davide Sottara wrote
The goal of @propertyReactive is exactly to prevent rules from refiring
on a modify, based on what properties are constrained or @watched.
This is irrelevant with respect to the order of the rules.
This may or may not be a bug, we'd need to see the rules.
Davide
Example
Of course, a workaround is to add @watch(value) to rule 1, but thats really
weird.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Adding-PropertyReactive-causes-the-other-rules-removed-from-the-stack-tp4027374p4027383.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list
I turned your code into a unit test and added it to the 6.0 codebase. see the
method “testModifyAfterInsertWithPropertyReactive” in the commit:
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/commit/53ca46d3b
It works for PHREAK and RETE mode. Everything works for 6.0, we’ll try it
against 5.6.CR1 soon
small correction to the unit test, which I paste in full below:
@Test
public void testModifyAfterInsertWithPropertyReactive() {
String rule1 =
\n +
package com.sample;\n +
import + MyClass.class.getCanonicalName() + ;\n +
global java.util.List
Hi there,
I am using KnowledgeAgent to get the knowledgeBase and have notifierService
started to monitor the rules resource. New knowledgeBase is being created
when kAgent finds changes on the rules. However, I don't want to replace the
old knowledgebase if newly created knowledgebase has some
There is a newInstance option in the KA configuration that determines
whether the changes are applied to the existing KB, or a new one is to
be created. Please see the documentation for more details.
As a side note, the KA was refactored and improved in 5.5 and 5.6 to
fix some bugs and missing
Thanks for the reply, so far from documentation, I believe
newInstance=true(default) replaces the old kb as a whole and =false will
update the existing kb. But I didn't see anywhere explaining that if there
is a compilation error on rules, it will not update the kb. And I verified.
It updates the
That feature was definitely not available in 5.3...
I would have to check in 5.6, and I agree that it would
be a nice feature to have. I'll see if we are still in time to add it.
Davide
On 12/20/2013 12:35 PM, bhochhi wrote:
Thanks for the reply, so far from documentation, I believe
