No I only did agenda groups. Key part to the "port" is to share code, so
we still have examples for agenda-groups, don't want to loose those.
Probalby create a factory of some sort to abstract away the parts in
conway that do any rule stuff, so a switch can specify whether the
factory is ruleflowgroup or agenda groups.
Mark
Michael Neale wrote:
Hi Michael.
I think Mark was working on a "stateful" conways example (the old was
stateless) - I wasn't sure if he got to using ruleflow (just check
first).
Ruleflow is probably very useful to most people who would have used
agenda-groups - agenda-groups are a stack, which is not intuitive to
most people, but ruleflows are more imperative, so examples showing
that are appreciated. I would almost go as far as to say that *most*
of the time when you want control, you want ruleflow (you will know if
you want agenda). Correct me if I am wrong, ruleflow is new to me !
Michael.
On 5/16/07, *Anstis, Michael (M.)* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Just to let you know I am updating the example to use ruleflow (it
looks like one or more rules are wrong too as the "glider" doesn't
glide, so I'll have a look at these also).
Doesn't look particularly taxing so should have it done very soon
- provided the wife doesn't complain that she's not seeing much of
me in the evenings ;-)
With kind regards,
Mike
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
