[rules-dev] PackageBuilder Warnings question

[Mikael Lönneberg]

Hi Edson,

I think we are actually in agreement here as the ProblemTypes could easily
be renamed to Severity instead..

I will have to think through how to expose the different message types that
should be possible to override.

Kind Regards

Mikael

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Edson Tirelli <ed.tirelli at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>    Hi Mikael,
>
>    One idea would be to define severities for compilation messages... could
> be 1..3, could be INFO, WARN, ERROR, etc. Each problem would have a default
> priority and in an ideal world, the user could override this priority (like
> you can do it in eclipse). So, for instance, a rule update could have a
> default severity of INFO, but if the user does not use dynamic rule updates,
> he would be able to define it as severity ERROR.
>
>    ERRORS would always prevent execution, while warnings and infos would be
> reported, but not prevent usage.
>
>    This is my opinion would be a great step forward compared to what we
> have today.
>
>    What do you think?
>
>    Thanks,
>       Edson
>
> 2011/8/24 Mikael Lönneberg <emil at snickeboa.com>
>
>> Hi I'm currently working on an implementation of a new type of problem
>> type namely Warnings, to solve the following JIRA's:
>> JBRULES-3124, JBRULES-3063, JBRULES-2730
>>
>> One of the JIRA's deal with the detection of duplicate rules and another
>> with detection of duplicate functions.
>> The question I have is in regards to this is, the current implementation
>> allows for rules and functions to be overridden by functions and rules
>> defined in different .drl files.
>> In order to not break backwards compatibility and allow people to continue
>> with this behavior we could just create a warning for these types of issues
>> which is reported through a new getProblems(ProblemType... problemTypes) to
>> get the problem types you are interested in, we will leave the legacy method
>> getErrors() for backward compatibility. Another approach or complementary
>> approach is to for certain types of these Warnings configure the compiler to
>> be more or less strict, which in turn would switch the Type of these issues
>> from Warning to Error. Is this something that's desirable or would it be
>> sufficient to just report these issues as warnings and leave the
>> responsibility to the user to halt execution if certain Warnings exists?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Mikael (gwendo)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-dev mailing list
>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>   Edson Tirelli
>   JBoss Drools Core Development
>   JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20110825/84b1aa2d/attachment.html