On 11/20/05, Karr, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think I understand salience, but I still don't understand xor-groups. > From what I thought I understood, what I described doesn't match your > description, particularly related to your statement "then the other rule > will not as it is in the same XOR group". In my test case, it executed > the consequence for both rules in the same xor-group. How does that > jive with your statement? > > Perhaps my misunderstanding about this has to do with what "fire" means. > I thought this referred to the checking of the parameters and conditions > on a rule. Your statements seem to imply that's not the case. >
I don't know much about the xor-group part, becauase I haven't used it or examined its implementation, but my base assumption would be that the parameters and conditions are checked as normal, activations placed on the agenda, but before an activation is fired (e.g. consequence executed), it would check to ensure that no other activation from the same xorgroup has fired. What I'd expect to see, then, is all the relevant conditions are checked, but that the consequence of the rule with salience 2 is executed and the consequence of the rule with salience 1 is not (although the conditions would be). - Geoffrey -- Geoffrey Wiseman
