the real question is, did the person do exactly the same thing in both. if
only the person posted the entire code, then it would be easier to figure
what i happening
peter
On 4/26/06, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> no, I have to assume that it is asserting 50K of alarmdefine instances
> (thatis what I did).
>
> Man, this is like an episode of CSI (cue swirling camera as Peter starts
> bashing the keyboard).
>
> So 50K alarm define X 1K alarm.
>
> On 4/27/06, Peter Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > when I looked at the code the person posted earlier, it looked wrong.
> >
> > > > for(int i=1; i<1000; i++)
> > > > {
> > > > alarm malarm = new alarm();
> > > > malarm.setAlarmreason(i);
> > > > malarm.setAlarmlevel(1);
> > > > malarm.setObjtype(1);
> > > > malarm.setAlarmtype(1);
> > > > workingMemory.assertObject( malarm );
> > > > workingMemory.fireAllRules();
> > > > }
> >
> > if that is correct, the program is only asserting alarm class and not
> the
> > other one. I'll take a look at the zip file in a little bit.
> >
> > peter
> >
> >
>
>
