Indeed I did !! Sorry !
However, I'm still not sure what this brings to the table with respect to rules engineering. If I simply wanted a one-shot test why couldn't I just write the code in Java whereas if I want a RETE-based environment to monitor any/all changes to objects that I want to be eligible for firing then I simply use the rules system as is. It may be that I'm still confused as to the utility of your proposed feature. Thanks, Rich Halsey ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:09 PM Subject: Re: JESS: Re: Proposed feature > I think Rich Halsey wrote: > > > > On the other hand, depending on the system architecture > > or the goal we wish > > to achieve, a one-shot rule may be the anti-thesis of what we need. > > > > It seems that you, like James, may have missed the idea that this is > an optional property that you could grant to individual rules. The > default behavior would remain just as it is. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Ernest Friedman-Hill > Distributed Systems Research Phone: (925) 294-2154 > Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234 > PO Box 969, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Livermore, CA 94550 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]' > in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list > (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]' in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
