LOL, by "jeopardize the intention of the developer" you mean  "guess what the developer wanted to do but didn't know how to model" or more like "teach the developer how to use a stack"? :)

   Seriously, there is a reason why stacks work like they do and why agenda-groups are handled as stacks. You can try to use ruleflow-groups instead of agenda-groups, if you want to coordinate your rules in a more straight forward (I guess we could say more natural, sequential) way. Although, even with ruleflow-groups, you need to model them in the correct order or things will not go as you would like them to.

   Edson


2010/1/21 Pritam <infinity2heaven@gmail.com>

I set
session.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup("group1").setFocus();
session.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup("group2").setFocus();

and only group1 rule fires, but when I set
session.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup("group2").setFocus();
session.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup("group1").setFocus();

both group1 and group2 rules are fired.

It looks like setfocus internally is adding to the stack "in the order in
which it is called."

It would be nice to have a addfocus instead that doesn't jeopardize the
intention of the developer.
--
View this message in context: http://n3.nabble.com/Understanding-agenda-group-doesn-t-work-as-documented-in-book-or-docs-tp133386p133424.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users



--
 Edson Tirelli
 JBoss Drools Core Development
 JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com