We currently have the semantic that <send/> implicitly is an end of execution of the current ruleset. I'd like to propose we change that:
First of all, the name is not intuitive of that behavior. OK so we can fix the name, but I'd like to separate the two actions: that of sending a message and that of finishing execution. What I suggest is we change <send/> to be just that: send the message per the semantics of send. When send is done, if there are any other rules around they keep executing. Now, I don't want to force everyone to write <send/> either (which is what we have now and that's cool). So how about saying that if the ruleset completes without the message being sent, then there's an implied <send/> at the end .. that means things work exactly as the way it does now for when <send/> is NOT there, but if its there then one can continue and send it to another place for example. Note that this also has the nice feature that you can use it to send the message, then change some stuff and send it elsewhere or send an event somewhere or whatever. Thoughts? Sanjiva. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
