I don't think that startProcess should clear the agenda, as you may have
ongoing rule executions that are seperate from the ruleflow, or even
monitoring the various ruleflows that are running.
Mark
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
Are you happy for me to continue with the work? I can plug a Factory
in to do as you describe. It depends upon your dead-line for "examples"...
As a side, calling WorkingMemory.startProcess(xxx) doesn't clear the
agenda so anything previously scheduled gets run along with the
process. Is this by design?
If so, documenting it (yep, I appreciate where everyone - "the
community" - is with that) would have prevented my head scratching
last night!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Mark Proctor
*Sent:* 18 May 2007 02:35
*To:* Rules Dev List
*Subject:* Re: [rules-dev] Conway example - update to use ruleflow
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
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
