In the provided code, the arbitration suggested by Jones, Flynn, and Seiger [2, pp. 306] is implemented in the classes ***SharedCar*** and ***Arbiter*** in the "reverse order" compared to the code presented by Jones et al.: The Arbiter goes through the list and for the first ***SharedCar*** whose ***CarCommand*** instance is not null, calls ***CarDriver***'s *perform()* method with the *SharedCar*'s ***CarCommand*** instance and reports the *SharedCar* as the winner. It then breaks the for loop and starts over with the *SharedCar array* from 0, thus always starting from the most competent behaviour layer.
In the provided code, the arbitration suggested by Jones, Flynn, and Seiger [2, pp. 306] is implemented in the classes ***SharedCar*** and ***Arbiter*** in the "reverse order" compared to the code presented by Jones et al.: The Arbiter goes through the list and for the first ***SharedCar*** whose ***CarCommand*** instance is not null, calls ***CarDriver***'s *perform()* method with the *SharedCar*'s ***CarCommand*** instance and reports the *SharedCar* as the winner. It then breaks the for loop and starts over with the *SharedCar array* from 0, thus always starting from the most competent behaviour layer. The reason that this order is "reverse"; is that in the code presented by Jones et al., the arbiter goes through the behaviours in increasing order of competence, overruling the previous setting of the motor input.
Compare this with the arbiter of Fred Martin, [4, page 214-218].
