LOL, by "jeopardize the intention of the developer" you mean "guess what the developer wanted to do but didn't know how to model" or more like "teach the developer how to use a stack"? :)
Seriously, there is a reason why stacks work like they do and why agenda-groups are handled as stacks. You can try to use ruleflow-groups instead of agenda-groups, if you want to coordinate your rules in a more straight forward (I guess we could say more natural, sequential) way. Although, even with ruleflow-groups, you need to model them in the correct order or things will not go as you would like them to. Edson 2010/1/21 Pritam <[email protected]> > > I set > session.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup("group1").setFocus(); > session.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup("group2").setFocus(); > > and only group1 rule fires, but when I set > session.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup("group2").setFocus(); > session.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup("group1").setFocus(); > > both group1 and group2 rules are fired. > > It looks like setfocus internally is adding to the stack "in the order in > which it is called." > > It would be nice to have a addfocus instead that doesn't jeopardize the > intention of the developer. > -- > View this message in context: > http://n3.nabble.com/Understanding-agenda-group-doesn-t-work-as-documented-in-book-or-docs-tp133386p133424.html > Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
