On 27/01/2010 13:09, Simon Thum wrote: > Wolfgang Laun wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Simon Thum<simon.t...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >>> Personally, I look at it like: >>> >>> stateless -> propositional logic >>> stateful -> first-order logic >>> >>> >> This is a false proposition ;-) >> >> 'not', 'exists' and 'forall' - Drools' support for first-order logic >> quantifiers - is >> fully available (such as all the other features for LHS) in a stateless >> session. >> > Thanks for the clarification. So stateless _uses_ state but just doesn't > have it bound to the session? > > If that's true, is there a deeper sense behind StatelessSession not > supporting agenda arbitration? > > IOW, should I reasonably be able to cook up a > "SomewhatStatelessSessionWithAgendaSupport", or would I end up with a > half-arsed StatefulSession ? > you can use agenda and ruleflow from within the stateless session.
Mark > >> -W >> >> >>> I'm not sure that's 100% true though. In any case, it depends on the >>> kind of questions you like to ask. If you're not sure, test it. >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Simon >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-users mailing list >>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
