[jboss-jira] [JBoss JIRA] Commented: (JBRULES-1909) clarifiction wanted for Rules docs
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-1909?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug...
]
Mark Proctor commented on JBRULES-1909:
---------------------------------------
I updated the docs to say:
"As a general rule, it is a good idea not to count on rules firing in any particular
order, and to author the rules without worrying about a "flow". However when a
flow is needed a number of possibilities exist, including but not limited to: agenda
groups, rule flow groups, activation groups, control/semaphore facts. These are discussed
in later sections."
...
"While it best to design rules that do not need control flow, this is not always
possible. Agenda groups provide a handy way to create a "flow" between grouped
rules."
clarifiction wanted for Rules docs
----------------------------------
Key: JBRULES-1909
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-1909
Project: Drools
Issue Type: Bug
Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
Components: drools-docs-expert
Reporter: Darrin Mison
Assignee: Mark Proctor
Fix For: 5.2.0.CR1
QE feedback from the SOA edition of the JBoss Rules Reference contained the following
clarification request:
"Agenda groups are a handy way to create a "flow" between grouped
rules."
The previous paragraph indicated that a flow between rules cannot be relied on. Are we
saying that the flow between groups is a way around that limitation? Or is the term
'flow' being used in a different context here.
The content is the same in
http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/labs/labs/jbossrules/soa_tags/4.3.0.FP01_B...
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira