OK I will look into doing it. Unless someone beats me to it.<br><br>I propose a addRuleFlow() to PackageBuilder - and the rest is behind the scenes.<br><br>Sound good? <br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">
Mark Proctor</b> <<a href="mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org">mproctor@codehaus.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Was fine for the initially implementaiton, woudl rather have it fully
integrated for 4.0 final.<br><span class="sg">
<br>
Mark</span><div><span class="e" id="q_112c074c24d32c23_2"><br>
Michael Neale wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">great, not sure if I will do this for 4.0 though, will
see, but certainly this sounds like it can work nicely. <br>
<br>
Keeping it decoupled as it was is/was probably the best thing,
definitely the right way to go. <br>
<br>
So it ruleflow still "experimental" class for 4.0? or is it now
officially part of the core? <br>
<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/22/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kris Verlaenen</b> <<a href="mailto:kris.verlaenen@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
kris.verlaenen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The
reason it was specified in a separate class is that it is still
<br>
more experimental, and I didn't want to interfere with the core stuff<br>
too much. I don't see any real downsides, ruleflows are indeed just<br>
another asset I think.<br>
<br>
Kris<br>
<br>
On 5/22/07, Michael Neale <
<a href="mailto:michael.neale@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">michael.neale@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> Kris, looking at the ruleflow stuff (not the core, but the .rf
stuff), I<br>
> have a suggestion on how to make it more integrated with the
ruleset/package
<br>
> structure.<br>
><br>
> At the moment Ruleflow packages are a seperate entity that is
merged into a<br>
> RuleBase as needed.<br>
><br>
> Does anyone have any objections if we add the ability to have
ruleflow as
<br>
> part of a rule Package itself? (thus when that package is added to
the<br>
> rulebase, all the processes for ruleflow go along with it)? so a
ruleflow.rf<br>
> file for example becomes just another asset like a drl?
<br>
><br>
> Kris? thoughts? downsides?<br>
> No need to change the current API.<br>
><br>
> Michael<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>