The agenda is ordered by confliction resolution, as per normal. When a
rule fires it will remove from the agenda any other rules from the same
xor-group.
Mark
Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
On 11/20/05, Karr, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I understand salience, but I still don't understand xor-groups.
From what I thought I understood, what I described doesn't match your
description, particularly related to your statement "then the other rule
will not as it is in the same XOR group". In my test case, it executed
the consequence for both rules in the same xor-group. How does that
jive with your statement?
Perhaps my misunderstanding about this has to do with what "fire" means.
I thought this referred to the checking of the parameters and conditions
on a rule. Your statements seem to imply that's not the case.
I don't know much about the xor-group part, becauase I haven't used it or
examined its implementation, but my base assumption would be that the
parameters and conditions are checked as normal, activations placed on the
agenda, but before an activation is fired (e.g. consequence executed), it
would check to ensure that no other activation from the same xorgroup has
fired.
What I'd expect to see, then, is all the relevant conditions are checked,
but that the consequence of the rule with salience 2 is executed and the
consequence of the rule with salience 1 is not (although the conditions
would be).
- Geoffrey
--
Geoffrey Wiseman
