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.) <manstis1@ford.com> 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
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
  