I think that is an enhancement I have suggested before, we will look at it for 3. It does require keeping a memory of all past activations, so by default it would not be turned on (as it would use up memory which is wasted for the majority of cases where it is not needed).
On 2/22/06, Lionel Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes. I want it to not fire again for that rule/fact combination even if > the > fact is modified in the consequence of a subsequent rule. > > On 2/21/06, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > so you want to effecively remove a rule once it has fired? Or just a > > rule/fact combination? (ie that rule can fire for different facts that > > haven't caused it to fire before?) > > > > Condition sharing partly achieves what you need, BTW, conditions are not > > retested more then they need to be in some cases. > > > > On 2/21/06, Lionel Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Theres got to be a better way, where all the conditions for rules > > already > > > executed are not retested. There could be quite a number of rules that > > > have > > > already had there consequence executed and I'd like to to only test > the > > > conditions if the consequence for the rule hasn't been run yet. > > > > > > Something similar to the way noloop attribute can work on a single > rule. > > > > > > Lionel > > > > > > On 2/21/06, 宋宇彬 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > declare another variable named countRule1 with initi value 1, > > > > modify the rule 1 with condition x>2 && countRule1 ==1 and > consequence > > > > countRule1++ ;modifyObject(countRule1); > > > > > > > > another way？ > > > > > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > > > 发件人: Lionel Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > 发送时间: 2006年2月21日 8:39 > > > > 收件人: user@drools.codehaus.org > > > > 主题: [drools-user] Is there a way to not fire already fired rules > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Is there a way in drools to not have rules that have already been > > fired > > > > firing again when an object is modified? > > > > > > > > > > > > For example if I have: > > > > 1. rule 1 with condition x>2 > > > > 2. rule 2 with condition y>2 and consequence x = 10 3. rule 3 with > > > > condition x>6 > > > > > > > > If I give the facts x=3 and y=3, > > > > > > > > I would want > > > > 1. rule 1 and rule 2 are true so rule1 and rule 2 consequences are > > > fired. > > > > 2. The consequence of rule 2 make rule 3 true, so rule 3 fires. > > > > > > > > At the moment I get rule 1 firing a second time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lionel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************************************************************** > > > > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally > > > > privileged. If you have received this email in error or are > > > > not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender and > > > > delete this message from your computer. Any use, distribution, > > > > or copying of this email other than by the intended recipient is > > > strictly > > > > prohibited. All messages sent to and from us may be > > > > monitored to ensure compliance with internal policies and to protect > > our > > > > business. > > > > Emails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as > > they > > > > can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, > > > > or contain viruses. Anyone who communicates with us by email is > taken > > to > > > > accept these risks. > > > > > > > > 收发邮件者请注意： > > > > 本邮件含保密信息，若误收本邮件，请务必通知发送人并直接删去，不得使用、传播或复制本邮件。 > > > > 进出邮件均受到本公司合规监控。邮件可能发生被截留、被修改、丢失、被破坏或包含计算机病毒等不安全情况。 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************************************************************** > > > > > > > > > >
