You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We need "something" to achieve such functionality. Now users had to make their condition closures mutually exclusive to achieve such effect but that leads sometimes to a code overhead and a small evaluation overhead.
Drools has the concept of "activiation-group" (or smtg like it) which basically restricts activation of only one rule per group. However something like this might be an overkill, we can simply set a flag at rules-flow level that modifies such behavior.
I am happy with not supporting that on simple ClosureReducers ( closures expresed inside an array [] and not in a rule flow)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We need "something" to achieve such functionality. Now users had to make their condition closures mutually exclusive to achieve such effect but that leads sometimes to a code overhead and a small evaluation overhead.
Drools has the concept of "activiation-group" (or smtg like it) which basically restricts activation of only one rule per group. However something like this might be an overkill, we can simply set a flag at rules-flow level that modifies such behavior.
I am happy with not supporting that on simple ClosureReducers ( closures expresed inside an array [] and not in a rule flow)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: