Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:
>
> I think Bob Orchard wrote:
> ...
> > On this same topic is the question ... Why does a reset NOT retract definstance
>facts?
> > I expect that one can argue for both sides of this. Certainly if I write a simple
>jess
> ...
>
> This was a deliberate choice on my part. In CLIPS, having all the
> instances go away on reset makes sense, because COOL objects have no
> 'reality' outside of the CLIPS language. But in Jess, instances are
> regular old Java objects that have observable effects on the outside world:
> i.e., they might be GUI components, for example. So if reset removes
> the instances, they might -not- be GC'd - they might just be
> annoyingly unreachable from Jess. Also, in Jess, the objects might not
> have been created by the Jess language- they might have been created
> from Java code and passed to Jess, and there's no way for Jess to run
> that code again, so it'd better not be cavalier about tossing objects
> aside.
>
> Anyhow, it's what made sense to me. Does anyone else have any thoughts
> on the subject?
I agree with everything you have said but would suggest that there be a way to
remove the definstances when you need to (without having to do it via a
rule or set of rules). Perhaps a function that can remove all definstances or
a function that returns a multilist of all definstance fact ids (like list-function$
does for functions).
Bob.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the
list. List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
