3:30 a.m.
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
8:25 p.m.
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(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
8:35 p.m.
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(a)ford.com
<mailto: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(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
3:11 a.m.
Are you happy for me to continue with the work? I can plug a Factory in
to do as you describe. It depends upon your dead-line for "examples"...
As a side, calling WorkingMemory.startProcess(xxx) doesn't clear the
agenda so anything previously scheduled gets run along with the process.
Is this by design?
If so, documenting it (yep, I appreciate where everyone - "the
community" - is with that) would have prevented my head scratching last
night!
________________________________
From: rules-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: 18 May 2007 02:35
To: Rules Dev List
Subject: Re: [rules-dev] Conway example - update to use ruleflow
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(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
________________________________
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
7:53 a.m.
I don't think that startProcess should clear the agenda, as you may have
ongoing rule executions that are seperate from the ruleflow, or even
monitoring the various ruleflows that are running.
Mark
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
Are you happy for me to continue with the work? I can plug a Factory
in to do as you describe. It depends upon your dead-line for "examples"...
As a side, calling WorkingMemory.startProcess(xxx) doesn't clear the
agenda so anything previously scheduled gets run along with the
process. Is this by design?
If so, documenting it (yep, I appreciate where everyone - "the
community" - is with that) would have prevented my head scratching
last night!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* rules-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark Proctor
*Sent:* 18 May 2007 02:35
*To:* Rules Dev List
*Subject:* Re: [rules-dev] Conway example - update to use ruleflow
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(a)ford.com
> <mailto: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(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
7000
days inactive
7002
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Anstis, Michael (M.) -
Mark Proctor -
Michael Neale